Case: DINESH SINGH THAKUR Vs. SONAL THAKUR

The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CR No. 7190 of 2016 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision filed by thed against the order dated18.10.2016 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2016 wherebym injunction granted against the, vide order dated 26.09.2016 has been vacatedHaving regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to discuss all the facts in detail at this stage. Hence, the facts are stated in a summarized way only to appreciate the issue involved in this instant appeal.(a) The marriage between Dinesh Singhe was solemnized on 20.02.1995 as per Hindu rites and two children were born out of the said wedlock. Thed was working in United States of America (USA) at the time of marriage and he took thee to USA on Dependent Visa. Both the parties got the citizenship of USA in May, 2003. They obtainedstatus (Person of India Origin) in June 2003 andstatus (Overseas Citizens of India) in July 2006.d filed a petition being H.M.A. No. 601 of 2016 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) against thee at the Family Court, Gurgaon which is pending adjudication before the Court. Subsequently, thee filed a petition being Case No.D in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, USA for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and other reliefs. Thereafter, thed filed Civil Suit No. 15 of 2016 before the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, under Section 7 of the Act for permanent injunction and declaration inter alia to restrain thee from pursuing the petition for divorce before the Court in USA.(c) Learned District Judge, vide order dated 26.09.2016, granted ex parte ad interim injunction to thee filed an application for vacation and modification of the order dated 26.09.2016. Learned District Judge, vide order dated 18.10.2016, vacated the injunction granted vide order dated 26.09.2016.(d) Aggrieved by the order vacating injunction, thed preferred CR No. 7190 of 2016 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 03.11.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2016, thed has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning: 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.