Foreign court can hear divorce despite Indian marriage: HC

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that divorce proceedings may be pursued before a foreign court even if the marriage was solemnised in India, and that Indian courts should not restrain such proceedings at a preliminary stage by questioning the foreign court’s jurisdiction.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya set aside an interim order passed by a civil court at Alipore which had restrained a woman from prosecuting her divorce and maintenance proceedings before the Central Family Court in the United Kingdom.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in Kolkata on December 15, 2018, according to Hindu rites. The husband instituted a divorce suit before the Alipore court in September 2024. The wife subsequently filed divorce proceedings before the UK family court in October 2024, followed by an application for financial relief ancillary to the divorce.

The trial court had granted an ad interim anti-suit injunction, restraining the wife from continuing the UK proceedings, holding that the foreign court lacked jurisdiction and that any decree passed there would be inconclusive under Indian law. It had also taken note of a maintenance order passed by the UK court, observing that the order was onerous.

Setting aside the injunction, the High Court held that questions of territorial jurisdiction, habitual residence and forum must first be decided by the court where the proceedings are instituted, particularly when that court has already seized the issue. The Bench noted that the UK family court had stayed further proceedings in the divorce and maintenance cases pending adjudication of the jurisdictional question.

The Bench recorded that the wife has been residing in the UK since 2015, while the husband holds a senior position in a UK-based company, has significant professional engagement there, and has participated in the maintenance proceedings before the UK court. In such circumstances, the court held that it could not be said that contesting the proceedings in the UK was inherently inconvenient or oppressive for the husband.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench clarified that all observations made in the order were prima facie and would not prejudice the rights of either party in the matrimonial proceedings pending in India or the UK.