In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal seeking an anti-suit injunction against a divorce petition filed in a foreign court. The case involved an appellant residing in the U.K., while the respondent also had British citizenship. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the U.K. court to handle the divorce proceedings, as the parties were currently residing in the U.K., and the alleged grievances occurred within its territory.
Details of the Case
The appellant, Naina Surat Rawat, filed an appeal in FAO(OS) 27/2021 before the Delhi High Court. She sought an anti-suit injunction against the respondent, Mukul Goyal, to restrain him from proceeding with the divorce petition filed through the Family Court, East London. The appellant argued that the U.K. court lacked jurisdiction to handle the matter and claimed that she had been residing in the U.K. voluntarily.
However, the respondent, Mukul Goyal, countered these claims by asserting that he had acquired British citizenship on 16th June 2021. Both parties were currently residing in the U.K. for an extended period, and the issues between them had arisen within the U.K.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's Decision
After examining the facts and arguments presented by both parties, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court found no merit in the appellant’s plea for an anti-suit injunction. The court upheld the jurisdiction of the U.K. court in handling the divorce proceedings, given that the parties were residents of the U.K., and the alleged grievances occurred within its jurisdiction.
Rationale Behind the Decision
The court’s decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the following key factors:
Residency and Citizenship: Both parties were residing in the U.K., and the respondent had acquired British citizenship, establishing a substantial connection to the U.K. legal system.
Territorial Jurisdiction: The issues and grievances between the parties had arisen within the U.K., making it an appropriate forum for handling the divorce proceedings.
Convenience of the Parties: Considering the current circumstances and residency of the parties, the U.K. court was deemed to be the most convenient forum for resolving their disputes.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision to deny the anti-suit injunction in the case of Naina Surat Rawat v. Mukul Goyal highlights the importance of considering territorial jurisdiction and convenience of the parties in international divorce disputes. The court’s ruling reinforces the principle that the most appropriate forum for resolving disputes is where the parties are currently residing and where the alleged grievances have occurred. In such cases, the court should respect the jurisdiction of the foreign court, ensuring fairness and efficiency in legal proceedings.
