Taking Cue From Party's Assertion In Canadian Court That Indian Courts Are "Very Slow", MP High Court Orders Quick Disposal Of Anti-Suit Injunctions

Justice Subodh Abhyankar passed the said direction in response to the assertion made by the Respondent/Father before a Canadian Court that the courts are "generally very slow in India". By doing so, the Respondent/Husband was justifying his reason to approach the Canadian Court rather than pursuing the legal proceedings in India to get the custody of his child. While deciding the case in favor of the Respondent, the Court held that his remarks were not appreciated-

As a parting note, this court would be failing in its duties if it does not take note of the respondent's pleadings in the Canadian court about the working of the Indian courts and the law applicable. It is apparent that the respondent husband is trying to make the most of his situation in Canada, and has left no stone unturned even if it comes to making disparaging remarks against the Indian law as also the courts, which is strongly deprecated…Despite respondent-husband's misgivings about the working of the Indian courts, two orders have been passed in his favour only, first by the trial court vide the impugned order and the second, by this court in this petition.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the Petitioner/Mother, wherein she was challenging the order passed by the family court, whereby her application for anti- suit injunction under OXXXIX R1 and R2 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act was rejected.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioner and the Respondent got married in India and later shifted to U.S.A. They conceived a daughter out of the wedlock and eventually, the family moved to Canada where they held a Permanent Residency Card. Later, due to matrimonial discords, the Petitioner/Wife came back to India with the daughter to live with her parents in Indore. Attempts to save the marriage failed.

The Respondent then initiated proceedings before the Canadian Court for divorce and further sought for custody of his daughter. In response, the Petitioner filed for divorce before the family court, Indore. She later moved an application for anti-suit injunction before the lower court to restrain the Respondent from continuing with the proceedings in Canada or to commence any fresh proceedings in Canadian Court involving her or the daughter.

Meanwhile, the Respondent was able to obtain a favourable order from the Canadian Court, wherein the Petitioner was directed to bring the daughter back to Canada within 30 days. With this, the application for anti-suit injunction was rendered infructuous and accordingly, the same was rejected by the family court. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the High Court.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that the lower court had erred in holding that her application was not maintainable since no proceedings were pending before the Canadian Court. It was contended that the order passed by the Canadian Court was interim in nature. She further submitted that the daughter is now settled in Indore and is very happy with her grandparents. She also brought the Court's attention to the pleadings made by the Respondent before the Canadian Court, which reflected that he had disrespected the Indian courts.

Per contra, the Respondent argued that no illegality had been committed by the lower court in passing the impugned order.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that the direction of the Canadian Court to the Petitioner to bring the daughter back to Canada was final in nature. Perusing the order passed by the Canadian Court, the Court observed-

On perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by the Ontario Court on 13.07.2022, it is apparent that it is a final order so far as it relates to return of child Miraya is concerned, but in the separate order, certain directions have made to the parties to the lis which are of interim nature. In other words, the Court at Ontario has directed the daughter of the petitioner to return to Canada within 30 days time and after her arrival at Canada, certain other directions have also been issued by the said Court, which are interim in nature, only to ensure that the child should not be inconvenienced either mentally or physically in adjusting in the new environment there.

Considering the facts of the case along with the jurisprudence laid down by the Apex Court, the Court held that the family court had rightly rejected the application for grant of anti-suit injunction to the Petitioner-

Testing the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, on the anvil of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Rai Gupta (supra), this Court has no hesitation to hold that so far as the return of the daughter of the petitioner is concerned, when the proceedings in the Canadian Court have already come to an end, the anti suit injunction cannot be granted. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

While dismissing the prayer of the Petitioner, the Court extended her the liberty to challenge the execution proceeding, if initiated by the Respondent/Husband in India.

The Court then turned its attention to the pleadings made by the Respondent before the Canadian Court against the Indian Judiciary. The Court noted that while the Petitioner had moved the application for anti-suit injunction on 28.06.2022, the Respondent obtained the order in his favor from the Canadian Court on 13.07.2022. Thus, the family court had 15 days to decide the matter and it was only because of this delay that the matter had arisen. Taking its cue from the case, the Court directed all the courts in the State to deal with applications for anti-suit injunction expeditiously by passing an interim order, preferably within three days-

In such circumstances, it is directed to all the courts in Madhya Pradesh, that whenever such anti suit injunction applications are filed by any of the parties to the suit or proceedings, the efforts should be made to pass the ad interim order on the same, if prayed for, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three days time, in accordance with law. This is for the reasons that any delay by the trial court would increase the chances of the said application being rendered infructous many fold which is always the intention of the opposite party, as the courts must keep in mind that the judges in the Indian courts are already overburdened as compared to their counterparts in U.S. Or Europe or any other developed nations where the chances of fast disposal of a case are for more greater then in India.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition was disposed of.