Case: DINESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. SONAL THAKUR

to be taken into consideration by any court while granting an anti-suit injunction. These principles are as under:- The defendant, against whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the court. If the injunction is declined, the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated and; The principle of comity-respect for the court in which the commencement or continuation of action/proceeding is sought to be restrained-must be borne in mind. 14. In Modi Entertainment Networks (supra), this Court has reiterated this position by holding that the courts in India like Court in England are courts of law and equity. The principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunction being essentially an equitable relief; the courts in India have the powers to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction in an appropriate case; this is because the courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in personam; this power has to be exercised sparingly where such an injunction is sought and if not granted, it would amount to the defeat of ends of justice and injustice would be perpetuated. 15. In Vivek Rai Gupta vs. Niyati Gupta, Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006, decided on February 10, 2016, this Court has held as under:- If the execution proceedings are filed by the respondent-wife for executing the aforesaid decree dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Country, Ohio, USA against any other movable/immovable property in India it would be open to the appellant-husband to resist the said execution petition on any grounds available to him in law taking the position that such a decree is not executable. 16. Further, in Harmeeta Singh vs. Rajat Taneja 2003 (67) DRJ 58 , the Delhi High Court considering the fact that the parties have lived together for a very short time in the United States of America had granted anti suit injunction. 17. Y. Narasimha Rao & Others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Another (1991) 3 SCC 451 , this Court has held as under:- 20. From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognising a foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties. 18. Further, during the course of hearing, various documents such as pan card, Aadhar card of the respondent-wife, lease deed which was executed by her in 2015 etc., which are also placed on record, are sufficient to show that respondent-wife is ordinarily living in India. Further, as it appears from the proceedings recorded before the US court that the respondent herself has admitted that the Family Court Gurgaon has jurisdiction in the given case. The evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to show that the respondent is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of Gurugram Family Court. Though the respondent-wife is amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Court, Gurgaon, there is nothing on record to hold that the other party will suffer grave injustice if the injunction is not granted. There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of U.S. Undisputedly, the Circuit Court, Florida, USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. The contention that the appellant-husband will suffer grave injustice if the proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA doesnt stand to the ground as the appellant himself has been residing there after 2007 and the proceedings for grant of anti-suit injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how the appellant-husband would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining the respondent-wife from pursuing the divorce petition in Florida, is not granted. Still further, even if the injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated. 19. The contention that the respondent-wife has filed the petition for divorce in the court at USA on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is not the ground provided for divorce under the Act requires consideration. The mere fact that the respondent-wife has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesnt means that there are likelihood of her being succeeding in getting a decree for divorce. Specifically, in view of the fact that the appellant has raised this contention before the Circuit Court, Florida and both the parties will produce evidence with regard to the question whether their marriage is governed by the Act or any other law. 20. Foreign court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even after the appellant being able to prove that the parties in the present case are continued to be governed by the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute between them. 21. In view of above discussion and after having regard to the nature of case and other peculiar facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision rendered by the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Further, during the course of hearing, various documents such as pan card, Aadhar card of the, lease deed which was executed by her in 2015 etc., which are also placed on record, are sufficient to show thate is ordinarily living in India. Further, as it appears from the proceedings recorded before the US court that the respondent herself has admitted that the Family Court Gurgaon has jurisdiction in the given case. The evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to show that the respondent is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of Gurugram Family Court. Though thee is amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Court, Gurgaon, there is nothing on record to hold that the other party will suffer grave injustice if the injunction is not granted. There is no dispute to the fact that both the parties are permanent citizens of U.S. Undisputedly, the Circuit Court, Florida, USA is also having the concurrent jurisdiction in the given case. The contention that thed will suffer grave injustice if the proceedings are allowed to be continued in the Circuit Court, Florida USA doesnt stand to the ground as the appellant himself has been residing there after 2007 and the proceedings for grant oft injunction were initiated by him in India through another person by empowering him through a power of attorney to file and pursue the disputed litigation on his behalf. Further, there is nothing brought on record to show how thed would suffer grave injustice if the injunction restraining thee from pursuing the divorce petition in Florida, is not granted. Still further, even if the injunction is declined, it cannot be said that the ends of justice will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuatedThe contention that thee has filed the petition for divorce in the court at USA on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which is not the ground provided for divorce under the Act requires consideration. The mere fact that thee has filed the case on the ground which is not available to her under the Act, doesnt means that there are likelihood of her being succeeding in getting a decree for divorce. Specifically, in view of the fact that the appellant has raised this contention before the Circuit Court, Florida and both the parties will produce evidence with regard to the question whether their marriage is governed by the Act or any other lawForeign court cannot be presumed to be exercising its jurisdiction wrongly even after the appellant being able to prove that the parties in the present case are continued to be governed by the law governing Hindus in India in the matter of dispute between themIn view of above discussion and after having regard to the nature of case and other peculiar facts, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decision rendered by the High Court.