Explore how Indian courts grant anti-suit injunctions in matrimonial disputes involving foreign courts, explained through a Telangana High Court ruling.

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, holding that allegations of a husband sending money to his family, compelling expense tracking through Excel sheets, and exercising financial dominance though reflective of common social patterns do not amount to “cruelty” in the absence of tangible mental or physical harm.

A wife claimed that her NRI status and U.S. citizenship stripped Indian courts of jurisdiction over the couple’s divorce and custody dispute. The Telangana High Court rejected this argument, reaffirming that foreign citizenship cannot be used to block Indian matrimonial proceedings when the couple last resided together in India.

In Sondur Rajini v. Sondur Gopal , the wife filed a petition for judicial separation, custody of minor children, and maintenance  under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) . The NRI husband objected, claiming that both parties were citizens of Sweden and not domiciled in India , and therefore the Mumbai Family Court lacked jurisdiction  under Section 1(2) of the HMA. The wife argued that their domicile of origin was India , which she had never abandoned, and that even if the husband

In Indira Sonti v. Suryanarayan Murty Sonti , the plaintiff wife , married in the United States  to an NRI , was deserted by her husband and returned to India. She filed a maintenance suit under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act . Though the marriage took place in the U.S., the wife contended that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi . She stated that her father-in-law had contacted her father in New Delhi  regarding her marriage, had arranged for her return to De

In Balasubramaniam Guhan v. T. Hemapriya , the Madras High Court  applied Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)  to an NRI marriage  scenario. The wife filed a suit seeking to declare a divorce decree passed by a Scottish court  as ultra vires, illegal, unenforceable, and without jurisdiction , and also sought a consequential injunction  restraining her husband from enforcing the decree, including any claims to marry a second wife. The Court held that if a foreign judg

In Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma , the petitioner husband had filed for divorce in U.S. courts . During the ongoing custody proceedings, where both parties had been appointed as managing conservators  of their children, the wife brought the children to India, allegedly without informing the husband. The husband alleged that the children were in illegal custody  of the wife, and the High Court initially directed Sarita Sharma to restore custody of the two children  to him and

In Anubha v. Vikas Aggarwal , 100 (2002) DLT 682, the Delhi High Court  examined a crucial question: Can a decree of “no-fault divorce”  granted by a court in the United States be enforced in India when the marriage was solemnised under Hindu rites , and the wife neither consented to the divorce nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court? The case arose when the wife filed a suit  seeking a declaration that she was entitled to live separately from her NRI husband

In Rajiv Tayal v. Union of India & Ors. , 124 (2005) DLT 502: 2005 (85) DRJ 146, the Delhi High Court  addressed an important issue concerning the jurisdiction of Indian courts over NRI husbands  who evade legal proceedings initiated by their wives. The case arose when an NRI husband filed a writ petition  challenging the order of the Consulate General of India, New York , which had impounded his passport  under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967 , following directions from