The high court said it was clear that the man has deliberately avoided service in the divorce petition.
The Delhi High Court has restrained a man from proceeding with his divorce suit filed before the Canadian court while taking a serious view of the fact that he has “deliberately avoided” the divorce proceedings pending in India and continued to pursue the case abroad.
The high court said the multiplicity of divorce proceedings before the courts in India and Canada could result in conflicting decisions and added that ends of justice will be defeated if the anti-suit injunction is not granted.
When a court restrains a party to a suit or proceeding before it from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court, it is called an anti-suit injunction.
The high court passed the interim order while deciding on an application filed by a woman seeking to restrain her estranged husband from proceeding with the divorce petition filed by him before the Superior Court of Justice in Canada's Toronto.
“The court takes a serious view of the matter that the defendant (man) has deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings in India, but continues to pursue the divorce case filed by him before the Canadian court. Despite service in the present matter and being aware of the present proceedings, the defendant refuses to appear before this court,” Justice Amit Bansal said.
The high court said it was clear that the man has deliberately avoided service in the divorce petition to file a divorce case before the Canadian court.
“Perhaps, the defendant believed that the matrimonial laws in Canada would be more advantageous to him as compared to the Indian law,” it said.
The high court noted that the man and woman were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi in December 2002 and continued to reside here till April 2018.
“Therefore, it cannot be denied that the family courts in Delhi would have the jurisdiction to entertain the divorce case,” it said, adding that the man is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court.
“Further, in my view, ends of justice will be defeated if the anti-suit injunction is not granted. The defendant has deliberately chosen not to appear in the present proceedings as well as the divorce proceedings filed on behalf of the plaintiff (woman) in India and at the same time pursuing the divorce proceedings before the Canadian court.
“A prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The multiplicity of divorce proceedings before the courts in India and Canada could result in conflicting decisions. Accordingly, an interim injunction is passed against the defendant restraining the defendant from proceeding with the divorce suit filed by him before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Toronto, Canada,” the judge said.
The court said the man is deemed to be served and since he has failed to enter an appearance, he is proceeded against ex-parte.
The high court also expressed “shock” that in the divorce case there, a lawyer practicing in India has given an opinion in the Canadian court which was completely contrary to the record of the case and that too by misquoting and selectively quoting the observations made by the high court here.
The court noted that the divorce petition in India was filed on behalf of the woman on December 16, 2020, and notice was issued to the man on February 25, 2021. At that point of time, he was residing in India, and in his brief filed in a Canadian court, he stated that he left India for Canada along with the children only in September 2021 and immediately thereafter, filed a divorce petition there, it noted.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)