Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India

The Delhi High Court has taken a serious view of a case wherein the Husband deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings filed by his wife in India, refused to appear before the Court here and filed a separate divorce case in Canadian Court. 

Justice Amit Bansal passed an interim injunction against the husband restraining him from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Canadian Court.

Observing that the multiplicity of divorce proceedings before the Courts in India and Canada could result in conflicting decisions, the Court ordered thus:

"It is clear from the above, that the defendant has deliberately avoided service in the divorce petition in order to file divorce case before the Canadian Courts. Perhaps, the defendant believed that the matrimonial laws in Canada would be more advantageous to him as compared to the Indian law."

It added "The Court takes a serious view of the matter that the defendant has deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings in India, but continues to pursue the divorce case filed by him before the Canadian Court. Despite service in the present matter and being aware of the present proceedings, the defendant refuses to appear before this Court."

The Court was dealing with an application filed by the wife seeking an interim order restraining the defendant husband from proceeding with the divorce petition filed by him before the Canadian Court. it was argued that the Supreme Court has held in Madhavendra L Bhatnagar V. Bhavna Lall, (2021) 2 SCC 775 that the Indian Courts can pass an anti-suit injunction order against the defendant pursuing matrimonial proceedings before a Foreign Court when matrimonial proceedings have also been filed before competent courts in India. 

It was the case of the plaintiff wife that she had filed a divorce petition against the husband before the Family Court here on 16th December, 2020, which had been pending for over a year and that the husband had avoided service in the said matter.

It was alleged that in order to harass her, the defendant husband had filed a divorce case in Canada on 13th December, 2021.

When the application came up before the Predecessor Bench on 12th January, 2022, summons were issued in the suit and notice in the application were issued to the Husband. However, no ex parte interim injunction was granted.

The aforesaid order was taken up in an appeal by the wife which was dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 18th January, 2022. Subsequently, an application for early hearing was filed on behalf of the wife which was annexed with a 'Case Conference Brief' (Brief) filed on behalf of the husband before the Canadian Court. 

Along with the said brief, an opinion of the husband's advocate was attached wherein it was stated that the wife's application seeking to restrain him from proceeding in the divorce case in Canada was dismissed.

"This is clearly an erroneous statement issued by the advocate of the defendant. Records of the case show that though the Court did not grant ex- parte ad interim injunction on 12th January, 2022, the application was not dismissed by this Court and notice was issued to the defendant. In fact, this very application is now being considered by me," the Court said.

It added "This Court is shocked that a counsel practicing in India has given such an opinion which is completely contrary to the record of the case and that too by misquoting and selectively quoting the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court."

Further noting that the plaintiff and defendant were married in New Delhi on 21st December, 2002 and continued to reside in the city till April, 2018, the Court said that it cannot be denied that the Family Courts in Delhi would have the jurisdiction to entertain the divorce case.

"Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the defendant is amenable to jurisdiction of this court. Further, in my view, ends of justice will be defeated if the anti-suit injunction is not granted. The defendant has deliberately chosen not to appear in the present proceedings as well as the divorce proceedings filed on behalf of the plaintiff in India and at the same time pursuing the divorce proceedings before the Canadian Courts," the Court said.

While disposing of the application, the Court directed that the defendant be deemed to be served and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar for further proceedings on 12th September, 2022.

Advocates Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Saumya Dwivedi and Kumkum M appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: DAMINI MANCHANDA v. AVINASH BHAMBHANI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 636

Click Here To Read Order