Delhi District Court
Mr. Arun Sardana vs Smt. Tina Sardana on 10 October, 2014
Page Nos. 1/32
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI:ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
WEST DISTRICT:TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
CS No. 328/2014
MR. ARUN SARDANA
R/o B66, WEST PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI110008.
.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SMT. TINA SARDANA
1002 MARRIVALE CHASE,
ROSWELL, GA 30075,
USA.
ALSO AT:
C/o SH. DHEERAJ KUMAR,
COTTAGE No. 8, SOUTH PATEL NAGAR,
NEW DELHI110008.
......DEFENDANT
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 2/32
DATE OF FILING OF THE CASE : 17.04.2014
DATE OF RESERVATION OF ORDER/ JUDGMENT: 26.09.2014
DATE OF DECISION/JUDGMENT : 10.10.2014
ORDERS:
ORDER ON AMENDMENT APPLICATION:
Plaintiff has filed a suit against his wife, seeking permanent
injunction against her, from filing a divorce petition or any other legal petition at
Georgia, USA.
2 It is stated that during the pendency of the present suit itself,
defendant has preferred a "complaint" for divorce, as a result of which, the
present application has been moved to amend the plaint in order to plead
subsequent event.
3 It is further stated that filing of the "complaint" for divorce in the
Fulton Superior Court, Georgia, is a crucial fact, which, must be necessary to be
incorporated in the plaint to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties,
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 3/32
effectively.
4 In view of this development, the plaintiff now seeks to alter paras8,
10 and prayer clause, accordingly.
5 The suit was still at the stage of maintainability on the objections
raised by the Court, however, Ld. Counsel was given a hearing on this
application for amendment, as well.
6 Since, this amendment is relating only to the fact, which was earlier
apprehended, and which, now, has already taken place, in view of the
subsequent events and the fact that the suit is at the initial stage, the application
is allowed.
Application disposed off.
ORDER ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUIT ITSELF
:
7 Irrespective of the amendments made to the original plaint, as
already allowed, which was only to incorporate the subsequent events i.e. the
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 4/32
act which was apprehended, has already been done, and the alternation in the
plaint also done accordingly, the Court has still raised the objection to the
maintainability of the suit as it stood, and as it stands now after the amendment.
8 Several queries were raised by the Court, firstly as to how a Court
of a parallel jurisdiction, was competent to grant an antisuit injunction against
proceedings in an another Court of a parallel jurisdiction.
9 Further query that was raised by the Court that this being a
matrimonial matter, each of the parties was free to file for divorce and in the
forum of his or her choice, out of the various fora available.
10 Since both parties are admittedly Indians by birth, but admittedly
now are US citizens, and further it was also admitted, and in fact, it was divulged
in the initial proceedings by the plaintiff himself that both the parties were now
citizens of USA, already, the plaintiff was not able to explain any prejudice or
infringement on his legal rights by the defendant, and in case the filed a divorce
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 5/32
petition filed against him at USA, is decided by the concerned Court at USA.
11 It was submitted by Ld. Counsel that this may result into conflicting
decisions by two different Courts.
12 It was observed by the Court that since plaintiff had admittedly also
already filed for divorce, which was stated to be pending in Family Courts at
West District, Delhi, and it is clear that both parties were seeking a divorce,
though, in different Courts, and on their own allegation against each other; if both
of them were seeking divorce, there was hardly any scope of prejudice to their
party in either Court.
13 Further also, an objection was also raised by the Court regarding
territorial jurisdiction of West District Courts to entertain this suit even.
14 Since, the defendant was a resident of USA, and in fact, a citizen of
USA, and evidently the alleged cause of action to the plaintiff to bring him to the
Court, i.e. filing of the petition for divorce by the defendant in the US Courts, also
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 6/32
occurred at USA, therefore, since defendant was also a resident of USA, and
alleged cause of action was also alleged to have accrued at USA, the Delhi
Courts, as per Section 20 CPC, would not be having any territorial jurisdiction to
entertain this suit.
15 Further, vide para3 of the plaint, within one month of the marriage,
both the parties went to USA on H1B Visa, and stayed there only.
16 This implies that they last resided together at USA itself, and
therefore, it does not stand to reason as to why the plaintiff herein/husband who
could very well have filed for divorce in the US Courts itself, preferred Delhi
Courts.
17 The personal laws of parties that would govern them, would still be
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which, they are stated to have got married, and
it is the provisions of the said Act, which would determine the territorial
jurisdiction of the Courts, viewing it as a matrimonial matter.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 7/32
18 It is a case, where one or more Courts could be having the
jurisdiction i.e. either the Courts, where parties got married or the Courts where
parties last resided together, and out of these, if the defendant herein has
chosen to file a petition to seek the same relief i.e. of divorce at the US Courts,
where parties admittedly last resided together, and where they have been
staying, there is no reason, why the plaintiff herein, could also not have sought
the same relief from the Courts at Georgia, USA itself.
19 In fact, instead of seeking an antisuit injunction, the plaintiff herein
could very well have moved an application before the concerned Courts at USA
to get the two petitions i.e. the one filed by the wife, and the one which might
have been filed by the husband, to be consolidated to be tried and decided
together by one and the same Court, if apprehension of conflicting decision was
a real concern to the plaintiff.
20 However, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has been given ample
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 8/32
opportunities to satisfy the Court about the maintainability of this like suit, and
during the course of arguments, he has mainly relied upon two decisions, as
under:
1.Modi Entertainment Netwoek & Anr. Vs. W.S.G. Cricket PTE. Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 1177
2. Smt. Satya Vs. Sh. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 105. 21 The reliance of Ld. Counsel on both of these judgments has been quite misplaced, in as much as, applying the principles laiddown in the said two judgments, it would be quite clear that there is no cause of action available to the plaintiff to seek the relief of antisuit injunction in the present case. 22 In the first above cited case i.e. 'Modi Entertainment', Hon'ble Supreme Court has, at length, been pleased to elaborate on the aspect as to what is antisuit injunction, and when it can be granted by a Court of natural jurisdiction. This judgment relates mainly to the cases of contract between the CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 9/32 parties, and in fact, it is not about a matrimonial litigation, and even otherwise, irrespective of that, the principles that have been laiddown for the exercise of discretion to grant an antisuit injunction, are not applicable in the present case at all. It has been held therein that the Court must be satisfied on the following aspects:
(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is Which the defendant sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of of the present case is the court; not.
(b) if the injunction is declined the ends of justice Plaintiff of the present will be defeated and injustice will be perpetuated; case has not been and able to make out any.
(c) the principle of comity - respect for the court in Much required in the which the commencement or continuance of present case as this action/proceeding is sought to be restrained must Court is only a parallel be borne in mind; Court at best.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 10/32
(2) in a case where more forums than one are 'Forum' Conveniens'
available, the Court in exercise of its discretion to in the present case, is grant antisuit injunction will examine as to which is clearly at Georgia, the appropriate forum (forum conveniens) having US. regard to the convenience of the parties and may grant antisuit injunction in regard to proceedings (Proceeding at Indian which are oppressive or vexatious or in a forum Courts would be nonconveniens; oppressive and vexatious for the defendant) (3) Where jurisdiction of a court is invoked on the basis of jurisdiction clause in a contract, the (No contract in the recitals therein in regard to exclusive or non present case) exclusive jurisdiction of the court of choice of the parties are not determinative but are relevant factors and when a question arises as to the nature of jurisdiction agreed to between the parties the court has to decide the same on a true interpretation of the contract on the facts and in the circumstances of each case;
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 11/32 (4) a court of natural jurisdiction will not normally Not applicable as no grant antisuit injunction against a defendant agreement) before it where parties have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court including a foreign court, a forum of their choice in regard to the commencement or continuance of proceedings in the court of choice, save in an exceptional case for good and sufficient reasons, with a view to prevent injustice in circumstances such as which permit a contracting party to be relieved of the burden of the contract; or since the date of the contract the circumstances or subsequent events have made it impossible for the party seeking injunction to prosecute the case in the court of choice because the essence of the jurisdiction of the court does not exist or because of a vis major or force majeure and the like;
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 12/32 (5) where parties have agreed, under a non (No such agreement) exclusive jurisdiction clause, to approach a neutral foreign forum and be governed by the law applicable to it for the resolution of their disputes arising under the contract, ordinarily no anti suit injunction will be granted in regard to proceedings in such a forum conveniens and favoured forum as it shall be presumed that the parties have thought over their convenience and all other relevant factors before submitting to nonexclusive jurisdiction of the court of their choice which cannot be treated just an alternative forum;
(6) a party to the contract containing jurisdiction (Not applicable - no clause cannot normally be prevented from such agreement) approaching the court of choice of the parties as it would amount to aiding breach of the contract; yet when one of the parties to the jurisdiction clause approaches the court of choice in which exclusive or nonexclusive jurisdiction is created, the proceedings in that court cannot per se be treated as vexatious or oppressive nor can the court be said to be forum nonconveniens; and (7) the burden of establishing that the forum of (Not Applicable. choice is a forum non conveniens or the proceedings therein are oppressive or vexatious would be on the party so contending to aver and prove the same.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 13/32
23 The present case is not even one, where there has been any
agreement between the parties to chose any one Court, and therefore, strictly speaking on the factual situation, the said judgment would not even be applicable.
24 However, if at all, on the contrary, what is clearly laid down herein is that discretion to grant of an antisuit injunction, would be exercised very sparingly in rarest of the rare cases after seeing and weighing so many factors, all of which, would be the burden of the plaintiff, seeking the injunction, to establish;
25 In the present case, though the CriteriaA is met with, in as much as, the defendant would be amenable to the personal jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts, as well, but as regards the CriteriaB, it is mainly to be seen that if the injunction is declined, the ends of justice would or would not be defeated, and CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 14/32 there would not be any injustice perpetrated.
26 In this regard, it certainly cannot be held in this case at all that mere filing of a divorce petition by the wife before US Courts, where the parties admittedly last resided together, would be causing any kind of injustice to the plaintiff, in as much as, there is no bar to the plaintiff to appear and contest the petition in the US Courts.
27 On the contrary, he may take steps to file his own petition as well before US Courts, as he also, is admittedly staying at US, under a work Visa, and rather, it would be more convenient for him to approach the US Courts, and to get the two petitions consolidated to be tried and decided by one and the same Court, which would also do away with the apprehension of conflicting decision.
28 Even otherwise, where both the parties are desirous of a divorce, though, on their respective grounds and allegations, the only best possible CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 15/32 course would have been for the plaintiff to seek consolidation of the two petitions, instead of proceeding to file the civil suit for an antisuit injunction. 29 Thirdly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also highlighted the principles of "comity" respect for the Court, in which, the commencement or continuance of action/proceeding must be borne in mind. 30 In this regard, this is precisely the objection raised by the Court as to how a Court of a parallel jurisdiction could be competent to even grant such an injunction. Normally, as per the provisions of the CPC, it is already the Court of higher jurisdiction or the Court having administrative control, which would be competent to transfer4 the suits, from one to the other Court, or, even to allow consolidation of two suits, and it is not as if one Court of an equal jurisdiction, would be competent to take a decision about the suit, pending before another Court of an equal jurisdiction, except in Section 10 CPC; which, however, would not apply in the matter of cross cases.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 16/32
31 Thus, applying the third criteria as well, this kind of suit itself would
not be maintainable even before the present Court. 32 As regards the criteria of convenience referred to as "Forum Conveniens", as well, having regard to the convenience of the parties, the wife in the present case i.e. the defendant, it would naturally not be convenient for the wife to come and seek a divorce in the Indian Courts, all the way from USA, whereas, on the other hand, it is not going to cause any hardship at all to the plaintiff herein, who is admittedly, still residing in USA on a work Visa, to seek the divorce in US Courts itself.
33 Some of the criteria laid down relate only to those cases, where parties by a contract have agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Court including a foreign Court, and therefore, is not applicable at all to the present case. Here it is not even the case of the plaintiff himself that there was any such agreement.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 17/32
34 The burden of establishing that the forum of a choice, is a forum
nonconveniens or the proceedings therein are oppressive or vexatious would be on the party so contending to aver and prove the same, which he has failed to discharge, in as much as, plaintiff herein has not even been able to explain at all even to the repeated Court queries, as to what prejudice is going to be caused to him, if he, who is admittedly staying at US, goes and seeks a divorce in the same Court.
35 In any case, he has not been able to make out any cause of action whatsoever to seek an injunction against the defendant from filing the petition for divorce in Georgia Courts, at USA or from continuing the proceedings there. 36 As regards the reliance on the decision in the case of 'Smt. Satya Vs. Sh. Teja Singh', as well, the same is also of no help to the plaintiff, and rather, it is once again absolutely, misconceived, in as much as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein was of the view in favour of not granting an antisuit CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 18/32 injunction, rather than granting it, particularly in the matrimonial cases, and in fact, the said case was not even about the grant of injunction or otherwise, but it was about giving or not giving recognition to foreign decree of divorce, which was in question.
37 Firstly, this would not be applicable to the given situation, but even if the principles are applied, it would go against the case of the plaintiff, as it was held therein, that, if recognition is not granted, the unhappy marriage between the parties would be forced to limp, and further the repercussions would be, that, while they would be treated as divorced abroad, their bond of matrimony will remain unsnapped in India i.e. their country of domicile. Lordships have, however, made a distinction in that case, which was more in facts, where a husband had procured a decree of divorce by trickery at Nevada Court, in USA, portraying that as his State of Domicile.
38 For that matter, a decree obtained in a fraudulent manner, even
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 19/32
from an Indian Court of jurisdiction, would also be open to be recalled, as and when, the fact is brought to the notice of a Court. 39 Initially, the question as framed by the Hon'ble High Court (against whose Order, the appeal had been preferred by a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court), had framed the question, as under: 40 "Whether a Hindu marriage solemnized within this country can be validly annulled by a decree of divorce granted by a foreign Court." 41 The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that this framing of the question narrowed down the controversy by restricting the inquiry to Hindu marriages, and yet in another way, it broadened the inquiry by opening up the larger question, whether marriages solemnized in this country can at all be dissolved by a Court of foreign country.
42 The Hon'ble High Court had not decided this question, and preferred to rest its decision on the Le Mesurier doctrine i.e. domicile of the CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 20/32 spouses affords the only true test of jurisdiction. 43 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in order to bring out the real point in controversy, reframed the question for decision thus: Is the decree of divorce passed by the Nevada Court in USA, entitled to recognition in India? 44 While arriving at their decision, several observations have been made about the significance of the matrimonial matters, which are on a different footing, and it was observed that marriage and divorce are matters of social significance, and it was also observed that this is more a domain of rules of Private International Law.
45 It was further discussed that it is a well recognized principle that Private International Law, is not the same in all countries, and there is no system of a Private International Law which can claim universal recognition. 46 It was further observed that such a recognition is accorded, not as an act of courtesy, but on concern of justice, and that it is implicit in that process CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 21/32 that foreign law must not offend against our public policy, and therefore, we cannot adopt mechanically the rules of Private International Law evolved by that country.
47 Some of the significant observations by their Lordship in this judgment are necessary to be referred herein, as under: "These principles vary greatly and are moulded by the distinctive social, political and economic conditions obtaining in these countries. Questions relating to the personal status of a party depend in England and North America upon the law of his domicil, but in France, Italy, Spain and most of the other European countries upon the law of his nationality.
Principles governing matters within the divorce jurisdiction are so conflicting in the different countries that not unoften a man and a woman are husband and wife in one jurisdiction but treated as divorced in another jurisdiction."
48 As already observed above, this judgment was more on the
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 22/32
peculiar facts of the given case i.e. fraudulent manner, in which, the husband had obtained a decree from Nevada Courts, claiming that he was a bonafide domicile in the County Warsaw, State of Nevada, with the intent to make the State of Nevada for an indefinite period of time. 49 However, apart from that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to elaborate on the aspect as to the American Law in a similar jurisdiction i.e. a perception of principles, on which, foreign decrees of divorce are accorded recognition in America, and a brief acquaintance with the divorce jurisdiction in Nevada, and it was further observed, as under: "No country is bound by comity to give effect in its courts to divorce laws of another country which are repugnant to its own laws and public policy. Thus, where a "mailorder divorce" granted by a Mexican court was not based on jurisdictional finding of domicile, the decree was held to have no extraterritorial effect in New Jersey.(1) American courts generally abhor the collusive Mexican mail CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 23/32 order divorces and refuse to recognise them.
(4) Mail order divorces are obtained by correspondence by a spouse not domiciled in Mexico. Lately, in his wellknown book on divorce says that "The facilities afforded by the Mexican courts to grant divorces to all and sundry whatsoever their nationality or domicile have become even more notorious than those in Reno, Nevada"(5) Recognition is denied to such decrees as a matter of public policy. "
"But if a decree of divorce is to be accorded full faith and credit in the courts of another jurisdiction it is necessary that the court granting the decree has jurisdiction over the proceedings. A decree of divorce is thus treated as a conclusive adjudication of all matters in controversy except the jurisdictional facts on which it is founded. Domicil is such a jurisdictional fact."
50 In that case, particularly, the Nevada Matrimonial Law, which was quite peculiar, and particular laws of other States in USA, were discussed. Mainly, it was a case, where husband wrongly claimed that he was a domicile of CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 24/32 Nevada State, and intended to adopt as his residence, and which was a case of fraud.
51 In the present case, it is not even the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has tried to commit any fraud, or otherwise; or that the matrimonial law of State of Georgia in US are opposed to the public policy of India. 52 The case cited was one of a sham domicile, alleged solely for the purpose of divorce, and which is not the case here as admittedly both the parties last resided together at US, and fact, they are still stated to be continuing to reside there. Even though, in the memo of parties, the plaintiff has shown his residence at Delhi, but when several queries were put him in the initial stage, he has admitted that he was also staying at USA.
53 As such, reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff on this second decision, also, is not of any help to him, and plaintiff has failed to make out any case as to why the defendant should be restrained from proceeding or CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 25/32 continuing with her own divorce petition at Georgia Courts in USA, and as to what hardship would be caused to the plaintiff/husband if the injunction is not granted.
54 Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under: "As we have stated at the outset, these principles of the American and English conflict of laws are not to be adopted blindly by Indian courts. Our notions of a genuine divorce and of substantial justice and the distinctive principles of our public policy must determine the rules of our Private International Law. But an awareness of foreign law in a parallel jurisdiction would be a useful guideline in determining these rules. We are sovereign with our territory but "it is no derogation of sovereignty to take account of foreign law" and as said by Cardozo J. "We are not so provincial as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home"; and we shall not brush aside foreign judicial processes unless doing so "would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep rooted tradition of the common weal. Loucks v. Standard Oil Cg. of CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 26/32 New York (1918) 224 N.Y. 99."
Furthermore, also observed as under by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes a foreign judgment conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon except "where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction".
Further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under: "Under section 13(e), Civil Procedure Code, the foreign judgment is open to challenge "where it has been obtained by fraud" ."
Towards the end, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under: "Our legislature ought to find a solution to such schizoid situations as the British Parliament has, to a large extent, done by passing the "Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act, 1971".
Perhaps, the International Hague Convention CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 27/32 of 1970 which contains a comprehensive scheme for relieving the confusion caused by differing. systems of conflict of laws may serve as a model."
55 Ld. counsel for plaintiff further also relied upon two more decisions which are of our own Hon'ble High Court i.e. Ravinder Singh Mahindra Vs. Param Singh and Ors. CS (OS) No.1237/2009 - Date of decision 08.01.2010 and Union of India Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. 2012 (129) DRJ 396. 56 The first decision on its own facts was quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case and does not have any bearing on the present case. In that case, the defendant had filed a divorce petition in another country which was dismissed on account of no residence status and thereafter, the defendant filed another petition for judicial separation in the same country and then she filed a divorce petition in the district court and what was noted was that she had filed multiple proceeding against the plaintiff, based on similar causes of action, and on the same relief, and it is in this backdrop, that the Hon'ble High CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 28/32 Court was of the view that the suit praying for antisuit injunction was maintainable and therefore, on the facts, this judgment would not be applicable to the given facts of this present case, where it is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant is not the resident of USA or that the US Courts are not competent to entertain and decide the petition of divorce filed by the defendant therein. 57 Same is the case with the reliance on the decision i.e. Union of India Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. , where again it was a plea of resjudicata u/S 11 which was in question and which again is not applicable in the present case.
58 Even otherwise, it was a matter where the parties had agreed for arbitration and they had also agreed for a seat of arbitration to be at Kuwalalmpur and arbitration to be conducted in accordance with laws of England Court. Venue of arbitration had been shifted to London by the arbitrator with the consent of the parties. Apparently dispute was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 29/32 Court of India on the point of jurisdiction with Indian Courts, and about the seat of arbitration. During the pendency of the dispute, defendant had moved the English Courts to seek a declaration that it is the English Courts who had the jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings. Defendant contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and sought a decision to hold that Indian Courts had no jurisdiction as change of venue did not change the seat of arbitration. The decision had become final and it was held that same issue could not be re agitated before the English Courts and in those circumstances, the plaintiff had been held entitled to antisuit injunction and none other. 59 The present case is totally on a different footing, and none of the circumstances exist here. Plaintiff has not been able to make out any cause of action for him to have approached the Indian Courts for an anti suit injunction qua the suit filed by wife at Georgia, USA. Even taking into account the three well settled principles for grant of an injunction, neither the plaintiff has been able CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 30/32 to make out a prima facie case in his favour since, he has admitted that both parties to the marriage last resided together at USA, and consequently the balance of convenience also lies, not in favour of the plaintiff/husband, but in favour of the defendant/wife, applying the principle of 'forum convenience' as already discussed above as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case earlier referred. Regarding there being any irreparable injury, the plaintiff has not been able to show any injury that may be caused by the proceedings of the divorce petition of the defendant/wife before US Courts, much less an irreparable injury.
60 Thus, even going by these established principles for grant of an injunctioin, the plaintiff would not be even entitled to seek such like injunction and it is evident that he has failed to make out a cause of action. If expenses are matter, it would be equally expensive or rather may be more expensive for the defendant/wife to come to Indian Courts to seek a divorce.
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA
Page Nos. 31/32
61 Since the plaintiff is admittedly residing at USA under a work visa, it
is always open to him to approach the US Courts to seek the same relief i.e. divorce and in fact to get the consolidation of the two suits to be tried and decided by one and the same court be it at USA, if he is actually concerned about the apprehension of conflicting decisions. 62 Since the Hindu Marriage Act provides one of the jurisdiction being at the place where the parties lastly resided together, there is no good reason why the plaintiff should be seeking an injunction against the defendant of the kind as sought.
63 The suit is without any cause of action and accordingly, though the application for amendment has been allowed and the amended plaint has been taken on record, however, to issue summons to the defendant would be only vexatious as the suit is without any cause of action. The plaint is rejected U/O 7 CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA Page Nos. 32/32 Rule 11 CPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OEPN COURT (SUJATA KOHLI)
TODAY i.e. ON 10 OCTOBER , 2014 Additional District Judge (West)
th
THC/Delhi:10.10.2014
CS No. 328/14 ARUN SARDANA Vs TINA SARDANA