The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal by Mihir Prakash Bajoria challenging the Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside an anti-suit injunction that had restrained his wife Vidushi Jain Bajoria from pursuing divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom. The bench, comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria, delivered the judgment on 22 September 2026, establishing that courts cannot grant anti-suit injunctions based on mere speculation that a foreign court may pass a decree that proves unenforceable in India.
The case began when Bajoria obtained an ex parte anti-suit injunction from the Alipore court on 1 November 2025, which restrained his wife from continuing her UK family court proceedings. The wife challenged this order before the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the injunction on 15 December 2025. Bajoria then approached the Supreme Court of India, but the bench upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed his appeal entirely.
The Anti-Suit Injunction Question
At the heart of this dispute lay a fundamental question about when courts in India can prevent parties from pursuing legal remedies abroad. Bajoria's argument rested on the premise that since a UK divorce decree might not be automatically recognised in India, his wife should be stopped from initiating those proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning outright.
The Court clarified that an anti-suit injunction cannot be granted on speculation regarding whether a foreign court's eventual decision will be enforceable under Indian law. This principle marks a significant boundary in how Indian courts approach cross-border matrimonial disputes. Rather than blocking foreign proceedings preemptively, the Court held that both parties retain the right to challenge any future UK Family Court decision through proper legal channels once it is rendered.
This distinction matters considerably for parties involved in international matrimonial disputes. It means that the existence of potential enforceability issues is not sufficient grounds to restrain a spouse from pursuing divorce in a foreign jurisdiction. The proper time to contest recognition of a foreign decree is after it has been granted, not before the foreign proceedings have even concluded.
Understanding the Scope of the Judgment
Court observers and legal practitioners have noted that this judgment requires careful interpretation. The Supreme Court of India did not declare that foreign divorce decrees are automatically recognised in India, nor did it finally determine whether a divorce granted on grounds of irretrievable breakdown by a foreign court necessarily satisfies the requirements of Indian matrimonial law.
Instead, the bench focused specifically on the doctrine of anti-suit injunctions, the appropriate forum for matrimonial disputes, the principle of forum non conveniens, and the comity that should exist between courts of different nations. The Court essentially held that speculative concerns about future non-recognition do not justify restraining a party from accessing a foreign forum.
The judgment draws on established principles from earlier decisions. The Supreme Court has previously held that anti-suit injunctions are an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted lightly. The bench in this case reinforced that such injunctions require clear grounds, not mere apprehension about what a foreign court might eventually decide.
Implications for Matrimonial Disputes
The decision has practical consequences for how matrimonial disputes proceed when one or both parties have connections to foreign jurisdictions. In cases where spouses are resident in different countries or where matrimonial assets are located abroad, parties can no longer be easily restrained from pursuing divorce in the forum they consider most appropriate simply because the resulting decree might face recognition challenges in India.
This does not mean that Indian courts will not intervene in cross-border matrimonial matters. Courts retain the power to consider whether India is the proper forum, to apply principles of forum non conveniens, and to examine questions of jurisdiction. However, intervention through anti-suit injunctions now requires a stronger factual basis than mere speculation about future enforceability.
The decision also underscores the importance of comity between judicial systems. By refusing to block foreign proceedings preemptively, the Supreme Court of India has signalled that it respects the jurisdiction and decisions of foreign courts, even while reserving the right to examine those decisions later under Indian law when recognition is sought.
The Road Ahead for the Parties
With the Supreme Court's dismissal of Bajoria's appeal, his wife remains free to continue her UK Family Court proceedings without the restraint of an Indian anti-suit injunction. The UK court can proceed to hear and decide the divorce petition according to English family law.
If the UK Family Court eventually grants a divorce decree, Bajoria will retain the right to challenge its recognition in India through the appropriate legal mechanisms. He could argue, for instance, that the UK court lacked jurisdiction, that the proceedings were not conducted fairly, or that recognition would violate Indian public policy. These defences would be examined at the time recognition is sought, not preemptively through an injunction.
Similarly, if either party wishes to challenge the UK court's decision or its enforceability, they can do so through appeals in England or through recognition proceedings in India once the foreign decree is final. The Supreme Court's judgment thus preserves the rights of both parties to contest the outcome of foreign proceedings through appropriate legal channels.
Broader Legal Framework
The judgment reflects the evolving approach of Indian courts to private international law and cross-border matrimonial disputes. As India becomes increasingly integrated into global commerce and migration patterns, more families find themselves spread across multiple jurisdictions. The courts have had to develop principles that respect both the sovereignty of foreign courts and the need to protect Indian interests.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case aligns with international norms on comity and the recognition of foreign judgments. Most jurisdictions do not grant anti-suit injunctions based solely on concerns about future non-recognition. Instead, they allow parties to pursue remedies in foreign forums and then examine the resulting judgments when recognition is sought.
This approach also reflects practical considerations. Granting anti-suit injunctions on speculative grounds would create a chilling effect on access to foreign forums and could lead to conflicting orders from courts in different countries, each restraining the other party from proceeding. The Supreme Court's judgment helps avoid such complications.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The Supreme Court of India has made clear that matrimonial disputes involving foreign elements will not be resolved through blanket anti-suit injunctions based on concerns about future enforceability. Instead, parties must be allowed to pursue their remedies in the forum they believe appropriate, with recognition questions addressed once a foreign decree is actually rendered.
For Vidushi Jain Bajoria, the judgment means she can proceed with her UK Family Court petition without the shadow of an Indian injunction. For Mihir Prakash Bajoria, it means his remedies lie in contesting the UK proceedings on jurisdictional grounds or challenging recognition of any eventual decree in India, rather than preventing the foreign proceedings from moving forward.
The case serves as a reminder that in an increasingly interconnected world, Indian courts must balance the protection of their citizens' interests with respect for the jurisdiction and decisions of foreign courts. By refusing to grant anti-suit injunctions on speculation, the Supreme Court has struck that balance in favour of allowing parties access to the forums they seek while preserving the right to challenge foreign decisions later through established legal channels.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.