Telangana High Court
Devireddy Sukumar Reddy vs Smt. Tejaswini Reddy Beerapu on 17 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
cma_608_2024
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.608 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff-wife filed the Suit i.e., O.S.No.3 of 2024 before the Court of Principal Family Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, for granting temporary anti-Suit injunction against the defendant-husband, restraining the defendant from proceeding and further participating in the proceedings in Case No.24-104453-DO on the file of Hon'ble Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Family Division, State of Michigan, United States of America, and restraining the defendant from filing any other Suit or Petition in any other State in USA and country/countries.
In the said Suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.666 of 2024, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Section 151 of the CPC, praying the Court to restrain the defendant from initiating any other or further action or proceedings of filing any Suit or Claims against the plaintiff in any Court in any Country outside India with regard to the matrimonial disputes between the plaintiff and defendant. The said I.A.No.666 of 2024 was allowed by granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant from initiating any further action in any suit or claim against the plaintiff in any Court/Tribunal/Forum in any other Country outside India with regard to matrimonial disputes between them. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed this appeal.
2cma_608_2024 NBK, J
2. Heard Mr. Sriharshitha Chada, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant; and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant (defendant) contends thatthe parties are residing at USA and therefore the Court at County of Wayne is the forum conveniens; that most of the assets related to the parties are in the Court in the USA and therefore no prejudice would have been caused if injunction was refused; that the plaintiff, by filing reply in the proceedings before the Court at USA, submitted herself to the jurisdiction of foreign Court; that the plaintiff even sought leave to appeal before the Court of Appeal and therefore she suppressed the fact; that on receiving summons from the II Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, the defendant (through his Advocate) filed vakalat followed by NOC vakalat on 26.10.2024, but the same were returned on the ground that the vakalat has not been filed along with the petition under Section 13 (amicus curiae) of Family Courts Act, 1984; that the defendant filed the petition under Section 13, duly notarized, on 02.11.2024, however, the Court proceeded to pass ex parte order; that on 02.11.2024 when the defendant filed the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC, along with Petition under Section 151 CPC for Re-open along with List of Documents in IA No.666 of 2024, the Court has returned the same on certain grounds and passed the impugned order setting the defendant/appellant ex parte; that the ex parte orders are generally not to be passed unless there is demonstrable failure by a party to appear or cooperate despite adequate opportunity; that the plaintiff is not under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and therefore 3 cma_608_2024 NBK, J the petition under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, which is about representation by an Advocate with prior permission of the Court, was not needed; that procedural technicalities should not override substantial justice; that both the parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court at County of Wayne, Family Division, State of Michigan, and therefore parallel jurisdiction by the II Additional Family Court at Hyderabad, would go against the principles of comity of Courts; therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network vs. W.S.G. Cricket PTE Ltd1; and Hari Vishnu vs. Ahmad Ishaque 2.
4. At the outset, it may be noted that the plaintiff and defendant are Indians, and their marriage ceremony has taken place in India, and they temporarily moved to USA on work visas. While in USA, matrimonial disputes arose between them and the defendant/husband filed a Divorce case before the Hon'ble Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Family Division, State of Michigan, in Case No.24-104453-DO. The plaintiff/wife filed her reply in the said case, and further sought Leave to Appeal before the Court of Appeals.
5. The plaintiff has filed the Suit O.S.No.3 of 2024, and moved the present interlocutory application IA No.666 of 2024, seeking anti-Suit injunction. The Judge, II Additional Family Court, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavendra L. 1 (2003) 4 SCC 341 2 (AIR 1955 SC 233) 4 cma_608_2024 NBK, J Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall3, allowed the application. Challenging the same, the defendant is before this Court in appeal.
6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar (supra) wherein it washeld as follows:
"8. When the matter travelled to the High Court at the instance of the appellant, even the High Court proceeded on an incorrect basis, that the courts in India could adjudicate the controversy between the parties, only after the Superior Court of Arizona would pass an order in the pending proceedings. That was not the purpose for which the ex parte ad interim relief was sought by the appellant. In any case, no judgment of this Court has been brought to our notice, which says that if the other party had already resorted to proceedings before another court including outside India, an anti-suit injunction cannot be issued even if the fact situation so warrants.
9. In our opinion, both the trial court and High Court misapplied the legal position and committed manifest error, in rejecting the ad interim relief claimed by the appellant against the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings between the parties before the Court at Bhopal.
10. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned decisions and to grant interim relief as prayed in the application filed before the Court at Bhopal as reproduced above, including to restrain the respondent from proceeding with the pending suit instituted by her in the Superior Court of Arizona or to file any other proceedings, including interim application(s) in any proceedings hereafter (except in the proceedings pending in court at Bhopal) until further orders to be passed by the Court at Bhopal."3
(2021) 2 SCC 775 5 cma_608_2024 NBK, J
7. With regard to the case, Modi Entertainment Network (supra), relied on by the appellant/defendant, it is to be noted that it is a case about the contractual agreement in relation to a Cricket tournament; and the facts of the case disclose that there is an express clause incorporated in the contractual agreement between the parties, making it obligatory for them to be amenable to the jurisdiction of English Courts, thereby giving rise to the pleading of forum conveniens. The case in Modi Entertainment Network (supra) is therefore distinguishable from the instant case, which is a matrimonial dispute.
8. Enforcement of a legal remedy in the context of an international contractual matter containing an express clause with regard to amenability to a particular Court vis-à-vis the act of filing a reply in response to adivorce application initiated by the defendant before the Court in USA, stand on a different footing altogether. The reply filed by the plaintiff in the case proceedings before the Court in USA, cannot ipso factoimply forum conveniens,and does not bar the plaintiff from seeking remedies available, more so when the Court in India has jurisdiction in personamin the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The judgment in Hari Vishnu (supra)is about an election petition and the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue appropriate writs to any authority under its territorial jurisdiction, and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The case is distinguishable on facts.
10. In the instant case, the learned II Additional Family Court has considered the documents filed by the plaintiff and observed that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff 6 cma_608_2024 NBK, J and that if injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in monetarily, and therefore granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/wife, and against the defendant/husband, pending disposal of the main case i.e., the Suit, O.S.No.3 of 2024.
11. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar (supra) wherein it was heldthat if the situation so warrants, the Court can issue anti-Suit injunction despite the fact that other party had resorted to legal proceedings outside India, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned Order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the II Additional family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.666 of 2024, in O.S.No.3 of 2024. This appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The interim stay granted on 12.12.2024 stands vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 17thJune, 2025 ksm