Case Title: Shri Sumit Sapra v Smt. Akansha Ahuja Sapra
Case No: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 358/2023 & CM APPL. 62410/2023
Decided on: 3rd January 2024
CORAM: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta J., V. Kmaeshwar Rao J.
Facts of the Case
In this appeal, the appellant challenges a decision issued by the Family Court in Delhi on November 20, 2023, rejecting the appellant’s plea under decision XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. The appellant requested an anti-suit injunction against the respondent wife’s divorce proceedings in the state of Michigan, USA. The couple married in Delhi in 2018 and went to the United States, where their kid was born in 2021. Disputes occurred, prompting divorce proceedings in both India and the United States.
The appellant claimed that the court in the United States lacked jurisdiction and that the divorce grounds were not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The appellant further highlighted their transitory status in the United States and the lack of Green Card applications. Given their extended residency in the US, the child’s US citizenship, and property ownership, the respondent argued that the US court constituted a forum conveniens. Using precedent, the Family Court denied the anti-suit injunction, noting the propriety of the US court and dismissing concerns about non-recognition under Section 13 of the CPC. The appellant filed an appeal, citing legal precedents about jurisdiction and venue suitability.
In brief, the appeal attempted to halt the respondent’s divorce proceedings in the United States, claiming that Indian law barred it from doing so. The court, however, decided that the Family Court’s ruling was correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.
Legal Provisions
In this matter, the appellant has sought relief before the Family Court, North District, Rohini, Delhi, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), as well as Section 151 C.P.C. The appellant’s request for an ad-interim injunction was first granted but then denied on November 20, 2023. The appellant claims that the respondent began divorce proceedings in the state of Michigan, USA, with a malicious intent, and disputes the foreign court’s jurisdiction. The appellant claims that the divorce grounds used in the United States are not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, and so any decision issued by a foreign court may not be recognised under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908.
The legal arguments centre on the concepts of anti-suit injunctions, forum conveniens, and acceptance of foreign marital judgements. The appellant contends, citing case laws such as Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi Rao, Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd., and Dinesh Kumar Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, that the divorce grounds in the United States may not align with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, potentially affecting the recognition of any foreign judgement. However, the court denies the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s ruling and emphasising that the United States is the forum conveniens for both parties and that the appellant has not established severe unfairness or vexatious processes warranting an anti-suit injunction.
Issues
The legal concerns in this case focus upon the appellant’s appeal against the Family Court in Delhi’s denial of a motion for an anti-suit injunction. The appellant claims that the respondent wife’s divorce procedures in the state of Michigan, USA, are fraudulent and attempts to prevent her from continuing with the case. The principal argument is founded on the notion that the spouses’ marriage was solemnised in Delhi, and both parties last resided as husband and wife in India, calling the foreign court’s jurisdiction into question. The appellant also contends that the grounds for divorce in the United States are not recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, and so any decision issued by a foreign court should not be recognised under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908.
Another major legal difficulty in marriage disputes involving non-resident Indians is determining the forum conveniens. The respondent claims that the court in the United States is the proper venue, citing circumstances such as both parties’ residency in the United States, the birth of their child in the United States, and the appellant’s application for a Green Card. The court must evaluate whether an anti-suit injunction is necessary, taking into account comity considerations, the convenience of the parties, and the legality of the proceedings in the United States as a proper forum for resolving the marital conflict and custody concerns. The case also dives into the interpretation of jurisdiction provisions and the applicability of the forum non conveniens concept in the context of marriage disputes involving Indian residents residing overseas.
Courts analysis and decision
In this appeal, the appellant challenged a ruling made by the Family Court in Delhi on November 20, 2023, dismissing the appellant’s motion for an anti-suit injunction against the divorce proceedings commenced by the respondent wife in the State of Michigan, USA. The appellant claimed that the divorce procedures in the United States were initiated with malice, claiming that both parties were permanent nationals of India and that their marriage was solemnised in Delhi. The appellant requested an injunction to prevent the respondent from pursuing the divorce matter in the United States.
The Family Court, on the other hand, determined that both parties were currently residing in the United States, making it the forum conveniens for their matrimonial dispute. The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the United States court lacked jurisdiction and emphasised the need to respect the principle of comity. The court also highlighted that the appellant had been residing in the United States since 2010.
The appellant also cited instances such as Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall and Modi Entertainment v. WSG Cricket Pte. Ltd., but the court differentiated these cases based on the facts of the case. Finally, the court determined that the respondent’s actions in the United States were not vexatious nor oppressive, and that refusing the anti-suit order would not result in severe unfairness to the appellant. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, refusing to overturn the Family Court’s ruling
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
