Bombay High Court
Nishikant S/O Pramod Deshmukh vs Sai W/O Nishikant Deshmukh on 28 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11316
1 2) CAW 2500-25 in WP 6257-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 2500 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6257 OF 2025
NISHIKANT S/O. PRAMOD DESHMUKH
...Vs...
SAI W/O NISHIKANT DESHMUKH
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders
Coram, Appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders
Shri Z.Z. Haq, Advocate for applicant/petitioner.
CORAM: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATED : 28th OCTOBER, 2025.
This is an application preferred under Order 39, Rule
1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by the husband against the
respondent wife.
2. In writ petition, a prayer is made to set aside the
order dated 19/09/2025 passed in Petition No. A-31/2025 by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Amravati rejecting the
application preferred by the husband praying for grant of
temporary injunction restraining the respondent wife from
proceeding with the petition bearing case no. 24-3-00133-0 SEA
before Superior Court of Washington, County of King, U.S. as
well as from initiating any other proceedings against the
husband in any County/Tribunal/Forum in any country outside
India.
3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
29/12/2019 at Amravati as per the customs and rites of Hindu
2 2) CAW 2500-25 in WP 6257-25.doc
community, which was subsequently registered with Amravati
Municipal Corporation on 30/12/2019. According to the
husband, the respondent wife was diagnosed with sexual
dysfunction. At the time of marriage, the husband was residing
in U.S. and wife was residing at Nagpur. The wife, after
marriage, came to reside with the husband in September, 2020
in U.S. and they resided together in Baltimore till November,
2021. The parties got permanent resident card in the month of
September, 2021. According to the husband, wife deserted him
on 31/01/2023 , which resulted in filing of proceeding bearing
case no. 24-3-00133-0 SEA for invalidation/annulment of
marriage before the Superior Court of Washington, County of
King, U.S..
4. In pursuance with summons, wife appeared and filed
a response. She requested the Court to pass Final Divorce Order
(pg.61). The Superior Court of Washington, County of King,
U.S. further on 06/07/2024 directed the husband to pay spousal
support and ordered to pay certain amount. The husband
thereafter preferred motion (pg.131) in the Superior Court for
"Exparte Motion to Dismiss". The said Court thereafter vide its
order dated 25/11/2024 (pg.147) granted the Motion to Dismiss,
filed by the husband. Consequently, all the proceedings in the
aforesaid case were dismissed.
5. The respondent wife, thereafter, preferred an
application praying for setting aside the order of dismissing the
case, which was allowed on 20/12/2024 and consequently, the
order dated 25/11/2024 dismissing the case, was set aside, on
3 2) CAW 2500-25 in WP 6257-25.doc
the ground that wife was entitled for opportunity to be heard.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the said order is challenged in the Foreign Court before the
appropriate authority. The husband after shifting to India, more
particularly at Amravati, filed the H.M.P.No. A-233/2024 before
the Family Court, Amravati for annulment of marriage. In the
said petition, an application for injunction was preferred by the
husband on the ground that, due to harassment caused by the
proceedings in U.S., he had to come to India as he was finding it
difficult to meet with the expenses without job. He further
stated that, he was shifted to India on 11/04/2025 and he is still
residing here. According to him, continuing proceedings in U.S.
are very expensive and it will be in the interest of justice for
both the parties, if the proceedings are continued here.
The aforesaid application was rejected by the
learned Family Court vide order dated 19/09/2025 (pg.21).
Learned Family Court has also taken into consideration and
discussed in detailed the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahavendra L. Bhatnagar V/s. Bhavna
Lall {(2021) 2 SSC 775} so also in the case of Y. Narsimha
Rao & ors. V/s. Y. Venkata Laxmi & anr. {(1991) 3 SCC
451}. The Family Court has also taken into consideration order
dated 08/08/2025 passed in First Appeal No. 2426/2023 with
First Appeal No. 2451/2023 in the case of Smiti Shah V/s.
Akash Shah by the High Court, Gujrat at Ahmadabad. Even the
parameters laid down in the case of Modi Entertainment
Network V/s. W.S.G. Cricket PTE. Ltd. {(2003) 4 SCC 341
4 2) CAW 2500-25 in WP 6257-25.doc
were also taken into consideration. The said judgments are also
cited during the course of hearing before this Court.
7. As the question is regarding grant of injunction, I
have considered entire documents on record. It is not disputed
that the initial proceedings before the Foreign Court were filed
by the husband for annulment. In response to it, the wife had
filed proceedings for divorce and had also applied for spousal
support. The spousal support is also granted by the Foreign
Court. An application preferred by the husband for dismissal of
his annulment petition though was earlier allowed, order came
to be recalled subsequently at the instance of wife.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the said order is challenged before the Appropriate Forum
therein. While deciding the application, the three tests for
deciding the issue while granting injunction i.e. prima facie
case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss and injury, are to
be taken into consideration. According to the husband, the case
is now fixed before the Foreign Court on 03/11/2025. His
contention is that the marriage was performed at Amravati and,
therefore, any decree if passed by the Foreign Court granting
divorce would not be executable in India, is a far-fetched
argument. Just because the case is now fixed on 03/11/2025
before the Foreign Court, it does not mean that the irreparable
loss would be caused to the husband. Recalling of order of
dismissal by the Foreign Court prima facie shows that the
husband's contention was not found appealing .
5 2) CAW 2500-25 in WP 6257-25.doc
9. At this stage, it would not be proper on my part to
comment on the merit of proceedings, since presently issue
regarding grant of injunction is decided. Pendency of
proceedings for annulment and divorce will in no manner cause
irreparable loss to the petitioner husband. As the husband and
wife both have filed the proceedings by submitting to the
jurisdiction of Foreign Court and those proceedings are
pending, considering the doctrine of comity, it cannot be said
that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner/
applicant. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the
wife as she has been given spousal support and has been
contesting the proceedings for divorce before the Foreign Court.
All the issues involved, can be dealt in detail at the time of final
disposal of the writ petition. The matter can also be taken for
hearing after Diwali Vacation-2025, if the appropriate
application is preferred by the husband. In that view of the
matter, since no case is made out for grant of injunction, Civil
Application No. 2500/2025 is rejected.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/10/2025 12:46:16
