Can Indian courts stop divorce proceedings abroad? A plea in top court raises a recurring question

A writ petition filed by a woman before the Supreme Court, seeking a halt to divorce proceedings initiated in Rhode Island, US, raises a recurring question in cross-border marriages: When a marriage is solemnised under Indian Christian law, can an Indian court restrain one of the spouses from pursuing divorce proceedings abroad? In her petition, the woman calls the move a “grave issue of transnational matrimonial abuse, forum shopping, coercive foreign divorce proceedings and violation of the fundamental rights of an Indian woman”. The marriage was solemnised under Indian Christian rites and later registered in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. The woman says she continues to be domiciled in India and that the marriage is governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The husband, according to the plea, initiated the divorce in October 2025 “without the petitioner’s consent and submission to its jurisdiction.” The woman’s plea describes the proceedings as “ex facie without jurisdiction, oppressive and constitutionally impermissible”, alleging they are being used as “an instrument of extortion, coercion and economic abuse”. “The cause of action is continuous and subsisting in India,” the petition states, adding that she is “remediless before foreign courts, which lack jurisdiction under Indian law.” Cases like this tend to surface when a marriage rooted in one legal system travels with the parties into another. A decree granted abroad may settle marital status there; whether it is recognised in India depends on the law governing the marriage and the competence of the court that assumed jurisdiction. The Supreme Court addressed this in Y Narasimha Rao v. Y Venkata Lakshmi (1991), stating that a matrimonial dispute must be adjudicated by courts by competent jurisdiction in accordance with the parties’ personal law and domicile. It is this principle that the present petition invokes, arguing that the attempt to secure a divorce abroad is meant to “defeat Indian law.” What governs recognition of foreign judgments The enforceability of foreign decrees in India is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 13 states that a foreign judgment is not conclusive if it is passed without jurisdiction, violates Indian law or is obtained by fraud. Section 14, on the other hand, allows courts to presume jurisdiction unless the contrary is established. Section 44A permits execution of decrees from reciprocating territories but only if they withstand the tests laid down under Section 13. For marriages involving Christians, the statutory structure separates solemnisation from dissolution. Section 88 of the Act states that “nothing in this Act shall be deemed to validate any marriage which the personal law applicable to either of the parties forbids him or her to enter into”. This is read as preserving the primacy of personal law over marital status. The statute governs how a marriage is performed, whereas the Divorce Act determines the grounds on which it may be ended. Indian courts and foreign proceedings Indian courts can restrain parties from pursuing litigation in foreign jurisdictions through orders known as “anti-suit injunctions”, invoked in matrimonial disputes where one spouse moved a foreign court despite the marriage being governed by Indian personal law. The SC set out the governing principles in Modi Entertainment Network vs WSG Cricket, holding that such relief is discretionary and must be exercised with caution. Before restraining a party, a court must be satisfied that the defendant is amenable to its personal jurisdiction and that refusing the injunction would defeat the ends of justice. Courts are also required to weigh the principle of comity, the mutual respect between judicial systems, though this does not prevent intervention where the foreign proceedings appear oppressive or vexatious. The Supreme Court illustrated this in Vivek Rai Gupta v. Niyati Gupta, where the wife obtained a divorce and maintenance order from a court in Ohio despite an interim direction from the Supreme Court asking her not to continue the proceedings. Taking note of what it termed a “contumacious” violation, the Court restrained all courts in India from passing any orders to implement or execute that foreign decree. The effect of the direction was not to invalidate the order abroad, but to ensure that it did not alter legal rights within India. Where a foreign decree is later brought for enforcement, the aggrieved party has the right to resist execution. The Supreme Court clarified that the affected spouse may take the position that the decree is “not executable” in India and specifically plead that it was passed after an Indian injunction had already been issued. It then falls to the court where execution is sought to examine the objection and determine the issue in accordance with the law, including the impact of the earlier restraint. This power, however, operates within territorial limits. Indian courts do not decide how a decree is enforced in the country where it was delivered, and cannot prevent actions such as the sale of property located abroad. Their authority is grounded in jurisdiction in personam, over the individual, enabling courts to prevent a party from relying on the benefit of a decree within India if it was obtained in disregard of a subsisting judicial order. The refusal to recognise or execute such decrees is rooted in principles of equity and the “ends of justice.” Courts have held that a litigant who bypasses an injunction to secure relief elsewhere may be disentitled to the assistance of Indian courts. A decree granted overseas may therefore continue to exist in that jurisdiction, yet remain incapable of enforcement in India if it is found to have been obtained in defiance of an Indian court’s direction.