The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Calcutta High Court’s decision to set aside an anti-suit injunction that had restrained a wife from pursuing divorce and financial proceedings before the UK Family Court.
A Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered the judgment on September 22, 2026, holding that the trial court had granted the injunction at a premature stage and that the UK was the more appropriate forum in the circumstances of the case.
Background
The appeal arose from matrimonial proceedings between Mihir Prakash Bajoria and Vidushi Jain Bajoria. The parties married in Kolkata on December 15, 2018, under Hindu customs and spent substantial periods of their matrimonial life in London. They began living separately in November 2023.
In September 2024, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Alipore Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife subsequently initiated divorce and related financial proceedings before the UK Family Court, relying on the alleged irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The UK proceedings also involved claims for interim financial relief. Meanwhile, the Indian matrimonial proceedings continued, with the Alipore Family Court rejecting the wife’s request to stay the Indian case.
On November 1, 2025, the Alipore Trial Court granted an ex-parte anti-suit injunction. It restrained the wife from continuing or taking further steps in the divorce and financial proceedings pending before the UK Family Court.
The trial court was influenced, among other things, by the view that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a ground for divorce under Indian matrimonial law and that a possible foreign decree on that basis could face recognition issues in India.
The Calcutta High Court later set aside the injunction. It observed that questions concerning the UK court’s jurisdiction and the appropriate forum were still under consideration before that court and that principles of judicial comity required caution before interfering with foreign proceedings.
The Supreme Court explained that an anti-suit injunction prevents a party from pursuing proceedings before another court, including a foreign court. Such relief is discretionary and must be exercised carefully.
The Court referred to the principles governing anti-suit injunctions, including whether the foreign proceedings are oppressive or vexatious, whether refusal of the injunction would cause injustice, and the need to respect the jurisdiction of courts in other countries.
"Anti-suit injunction orders are not supposed to be a routine judicial exercise. The court should be extremely slow, unless the pure legal or jurisdictional considerations are applicable, to issue the anti-suit injunction and thereby stall the proceedings in a court in the foreign country."
The Court also rejected the argument that the UK proceedings should have been restrained merely because irretrievable breakdown was not itself a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It noted that the UK proceedings were still pending and the jurisdictional issues had not been finally determined when the Indian trial court granted the injunction.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the UK was the forum conveniens in the circumstances. The Court noted that the parties had lived together in London for substantial periods, had established their matrimonial home and financial arrangements there, and that the wife was residing in the UK when the Indian suit was filed.
It further observed that the foreign proceedings had not reached a final stage when the anti-suit injunction was issued, making interference at that stage particularly inappropriate.
The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court judgment dated December 15, 2025, which had set aside the Alipore Trial Court’s anti-suit injunction.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were held not to survive.
Case Details
Case Title: Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria
Case Number: Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 15849 of 2026
Judges: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: September 22, 2026
