The Delhi High Court has barred a man from advancing with his divorce lawsuit filed in Canada, citing the fact that he “deliberately avoided” the divorce proceedings pending in India and continued to pursue the matter abroad.
Justice Amit Bansal issued an interim order against the husband, preventing him from progressing with the divorce complaint he filed in Canada.
Observing that the defendant had purposefully avoided service in the divorce petition, the Court noted that the multiplicity of divorce processes before the Courts in India and Canada could result in conflicting rulings.
“It is clear from the above case that the defendant believed that the matrimonial laws in Canada would be more advantageous to him as compared to the Indian law. 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
The Court was hearing an application filed by the wife seeking an interim order barring the defendant husband from proceeding with his divorce suit filed in Canadian Court.
It was argued that the Supreme Court, in Madhavendra L Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall, (2021) 2 SCC 775, held that Indian courts can issue an anti-suit injunction against a defendant who is pursuing matrimonial proceedings before a foreign court when matrimonial proceedings have also been filed before competent courts in India.
The man and woman were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi in December 2002 and continued to live here till April 2018.
“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”.
The plaintiff woman claimed that she had filed a divorce petition against the husband before the Family Court here on December 16, 2020, which had been pending for over a year, and that the husband had avoided service in the matter.
The defendant husband allegedly started a divorce action in Canada on December 13, 2021, in order to harass her. When the case was heard by the Predecessor Bench on January 12, 2022, summons and notice in the application were issued to the Husband. However, no ex parte injunction was issued.
The wife filed an appeal against the aforementioned order, which was denied by a Division Bench on January 18, 2022. Following that, the wife filed a motion for an early hearing, which was appended with a ‘Case Conference Brief’ (Brief) filed by the husband before the Canadian Court.
According to the court, the individual has been served, and because he has failed to attend, he is being tried ex-parte.
The high court also expressed “shock” that in the divorce case, a lawyer practising in India gave an opinion in the Canadian court that was completely contradictory to the case record.
“This is clearly an erroneous statement issued by the advocate of the defendant. Records of the case show that though the court did not grant ex-parte ad interim injunction on 12th January, 2022, the application was not dismissed by this court and notice was issued to the defendant. In fact, this very application is now being considered by me. This court is shocked that a counsel practising in India has given such an opinion which is completely contrary to the record of the case and that too by misquoting and selectively quoting the observations made by the Division Bench of this court.”
While dismissing the application, the Court directed that the defendant be declared served and scheduled the matter for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on September 12, 2022.
Case Title: Damini Manchanda vs Avinash Bhambhani