A Delhi Family Court (Rohini Court) has issued an anti-suit injunction order against a husband living in Germany and has restrained him from proceeding with cases against his wife who has been living in India.

The Court was dealing with a matter in which the marriage was solemnised between the parties in Delhi as per Hindu rituals and after a few months, both husband and wife shifted to Germany. The Court noted that the wife has no permanent residence in Germany and has no mechanism to defend a case there. It also noted that while the plaintiff wife has at no point submitted to the jurisdiction of any German court, the defendant husband has appeared in many proceedings in India.

Judge Sanjay Jindal said, “… the plaintiff has a prima-facie case in her favour and the balance of convenience also lies in her favour. It can also not be denied that there are chances of irreparable loss being caused to the plaintiff if temporary injunction is not granted.”

Advocate Juhi Arora appeared for the plaintiff wife. The Judge noted that the plaintiff has at no point of time, submitted to the jurisdiction of the German Court while on the other hand, the defendant already participated in different legal proceedings pending in India.

Brief Facts

Due to strained relations between the plaintiff (wife) and defendant (husband), they both started living separately as a result of which the plaintiff came to India with both her sons. The defendant filed proceedings for divorce and parental custody of children in Germany.

The plaintiff sought an injunction in the Family Court against the defendant for restraining him from pursuing the said proceedings. She contended before the Court that her husband had filed false and frivolous cases in Germany which are in contravention of the laws prevailing in India and that she already secured a job in Delhi.

The Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “… there is no bar in issuing anti suit injunction in appropriate cases pertaining to international jurisdiction.”

The Court said that the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the defendant were not helpful to him as the same were based on different set of facts. Hence, the Court issued an interim order against the defendant restraining him from pursuing proceedings for divorce and parental custody in Germany.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application of the plaintiff.

Cause Title- Dr. Charanjeet Kaur v. Dr. Vijyant Sabharwal

Click here to read/download the Order