Calcutta High Court
Punit Rajgaria vs Naina Agarwal on 4 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
G.A. No. 1 of 2024
With
G.A. No. 2 of 2024
In
CS No. 10 of 2024
Punit Rajgaria
Versus
Naina Agarwal
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee
Mr. Steven Sourodip Biswas
Mr. Aniruddha Ganguly
Ms. Neha Dutt Tenani
... For the plaintiff.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee
Ms. Kanchan Jaju
Ms. Vanshika Lamba
Mr. Sudarshan Agarwal
... For the defendant.
2
Hearing Concluded On : 26.03.2025
Judgment on : 04.04.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The defendant has filed the present application being G.A. No. 2 of 2024
praying for rejection of plaint. The plaintiff has filed the suit being C.S.
No. 10 of 2024 praying for the following reliefs:
"a. a decree of mandatory injunction against the
Defendant, her legal heirs, successors,
administrators, assignees, agent, relatives, friends,
servant employee, henchmen and executors
restraining her from instituting and/or pursuing
matrimonial legal proceedings against the plaintiff
before the Superior Court of California, Country of
Santa Clara;
b. Cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant;
c. any further relief or reliefs as this Learned Court
may deem fit and proper."
2. The plaintiff in paragraph 35 of the plaint stated about the jurisdiction
of this Court which reads as follows:
"35. That the marriage of the plaintiff and the
defendant was solemnized on 13.12.2016 before
the marriage officer namely Sh. Subrata Kumar
Dutta bearing certificate Sl No. 88/2016 dated
13.12.2016, page no. 1897 according to Special
Marriage Act at Kulti, PO + PS - Kulti, Paschim
Bardhaman, under the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court, hence this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction
to try and entertain the present suit."
3. In the cause title of the plaint, the plaintiff has described the address of
the plaintiff as residing at Ratan Textiles, Hanuman Mansion, PO & PS-
Kartrasgarh, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 828113, outside the jurisdiction of
this Court. As regard to the address of the defendant is mentioned as
residing at Halwaipatti, Station Road, Barakar, PS - Kulti, Paschim
Bardhaman- 713324 and also at 1231 Vicente Dr # 51, City-Sunnyvale-
94086, California, USA, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It is
admitted that both the parties to the suit are outside the jurisdiction of
this Court.
4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 at Kulti, Paschim Bardhaman and a social marriage
was performed at the same place, thus the marriage between the
parties was also solemnized outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The plaintiff has also filed a suit under Section 27 of the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 being Matrimonial Suit No. 706 of 2023 against the
defendant before the Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court,
Paschim Bardhaman at Asansol praying for dissolution of marriage
between the plaintiff and the defendant solemnized on 13th December,
2016 and the said suit is still pending before the Learned Court for
adjudication.
6. Section 31 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 reads as follows:
"31. Court to which petition should be
made. [(1) Every petition under Chapter V or
Chapter VI shall be presented to the district Court
within the local limits of whose original civil
jurisdiction
(i) the marriage was solemnized; or
(ii) the respondent, at the time of the
presentation of the petition, resides; or
(iii) the parties to the marriage last
resided together; or
[(iii-a) in case the wife is the petitioner,
where she is residing on the date of
presentation of the petition; or]
(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of
the presentation of the petition, in a case
where the respondent is, at that time, residing
outside the territories to which this Act
extends, or has not been heard of as being
alive for a period of seven years by those who
would naturally have heard of him if he were
alive.]
(2) Without prejudice to any jurisdiction
exercisable by the Court under sub-section (1), the
district Court may, by virtue of this sub-section,
entertain a petition by a wife domiciled in the
territories to which this Act extends for nullity of
marriage or for divorce if she is resident in the said
territories and has been ordinarily resident therein
for a period of three years immediately preceding
the presentation of the petition and the husband is
not resident in the said territories."
7. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows:
"7. Jurisdiction.- (1) Subject to the other
provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall-
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction
exercisable by any district court or any
subordinate civil court under any law for the
time being in force in respect of suits and
proceedings of the nature referred to in the
Explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of
exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to
be a district court, as the case may be, such
subordinate civil court for the area to which
the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation.- The suits and proceedings
referred to in this sub-section are suits and
proceedings of the following nature, namely:-
(a) a suit or proceeding between the
parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of
marriage (declaring the marriage to be null
and void or, as the case may be, annulling the
marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or
judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration
as to the validity of a marriage or as to the
matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the
parties to a marriage with respect to the
property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit of proceeding for an order or
injunction in circumstances arising out of a
marital relationship;
(e) a suit of proceeding for a declaration
as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit of proceeding in relation to the
guardianship of the person or the custody of,
or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this
Act, a Family Court shall also have and
exercise-
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a
Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX
(relating to order for maintenance of wife,
children and parents) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be
conferred on it by any other enactment."
8. By a Notification dated 19th March, 1991 in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 21 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the High
Court of Calcutta makes the Rules for the Family Courts in the State of
West Bengal.
9. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of Madhavendra
L. Bhatnagar Vs. Bhavna Lall reported in (2021) 2 SCC 775 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"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."
10. The plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Devi
Resources Limited Vs. Ambo Exports Limited reported in 2019 SCC
OnLine Cal 7774 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
held that:
"64. Thus, it cannot be said that this court,
while in seisin of the respondent's suit, did not
have the authority to issue an anti-suit or an anti-
arbitration injunction against the appellant herein.
It is only that once such interim injunction has been
vacated or set aside, it would imply that the
injunction had never been passed. The
consequence of an injunction is so devastating in
such circumstances that such an exception has to
be carved out.
65. Equally, merely because an injunction is
sought against a foreign court or a foreign forum
and not in personam against a party amenable to
the court in seisin of the prayer for such
injunction, it would not make the prayer for
injunction infructuous if the applicant meets the
high test otherwise required. The court may mould
the relief and issue an injunction in personam.
There is a line in some of the judgments, including
in Noy Vallesina, that an anti-suit and anti-
arbitration injunction may issue in personam only
against a party amenable to the jurisdiction of the
court issuing the injunction. Such amenability need
not be seen or tested at the time of issuance of the
injunction, but may also be seen from a different
perspective. If such an injunction is sought against
a foreign party by a party amenable to the
jurisdiction of the court, the amenability of the
foreign party to the jurisdiction of such court may
also be seen in the context of the foreign party
coming on a later date to enforce the foreign decree
or foreign award in this country."
11. The defendant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Essel
Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
reported in ILR (2011) V Delhi 585 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court held that:
"11. We are, however, completely confined
and bound by the opinion articulated by the
Supreme Court in Modi Entertainment Network.
Parties to the dispute had consented that their
"agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with English law and the parties
hereby submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of
the English courts (without reference to English
conflict of law Rules)". Their Lordships did not find
any valid reason to grant an anti-suit injunction in
disregard of this jurisdictional clause; it declined to
restrain the Respondent from prosecuting the case
in the chosen forum, that is, the English
Courts.................................
1. ***
2. ***
3. ***
4. ***
5. ***
6. ***
7. ***
8. ***
9. ***
10. ***
11. ***
12. ***
13. ***
We have mentioned these precedents for the
reason that we think it entirely futile to analyse
them as this exercise has already been completed
in Modi Entertainment Network. The Supreme
Court had delineated the parameters within which
the grant of an anti-suit injunction would be
justified, and we fall entirely within these frontiers.
Even with regard to the decisions that have been
delivered after Modi Entertainment Network, it is
not possible for us to charter a course that is not in
consonance with the principles culled out by their
Lordships. For facility of reference paragraph 24
of Modi Entertainment Network is reproduced:--
24. From the above discussion the following
principles emerge:
(1) In exercising discretion to grant an anti-suit
injunction the court must be satisfied of the
following aspects:
(a) the defendant, against whom injunction is
sought, is amenable to the personal
jurisdiction of the court;
(b) if the injunction is declined, the ends of
justice will be defeated and injustice will be
perpetuated; and
(c) the principle of comity -- respect for the
court in which the commencement or
continuance of action/proceeding is sought
to be restrained -- must be borne in mind.
(2) ***
(3) ***
(4) ***
(5) ***
(6) ***
(7) ***."
12. The defendant has also relied upon the judgment in the case of
Vadalasatti Samrajyamma vs. Vadalasatti Nagamma reported in
1993 (2) A.P.L.J. 274 (HC) wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court
held that:
"10. A decree dissolving a marriage involves
termination of status of the wife. If the husband
dies subsequent to the passing of the decree and
the wife seeks to set aside the decree, the question
would be whether the wife would be the widow of
the deceased or a divorcee. If the wife succeeds in
having the decree set aside, she will be a widow of
the deceased entitled to the benefits of the Hindu
Succession Act and will be entitled to inherit the
properties of the husband as a Class II heir. Such a
right cannot be claimed and will be lost unless
legal representatives of the deceased husband are
impleaded. The judgment dissolving the marriage is
a judgment in rem and will not merely involve the
personal status of the wife, but would involve her
property rights. The principle of "Actio personalis
cum moritur persona", will not be applicable and
the proceedings to set aside an ex parte decree will
not abate. Section 21 of the Act makes the
provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to
the proceedings under the Act. The provisions of
Order 22, Rule 4 can be applied to bring on record
the legal representatives of the deceased party to
the proceedings."
13. The marriage between the plaintiff and defendant was solemnized under
the Special Marriage Act, 1954 at Kulti, Paschim Bardhaman
admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant at time
of filing of the present suit not resided within the jurisdiction of this
Court. The marriage was consummated at Katrasgarh, Dhanbad,
Jharkhand outside the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also not the case
of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant last resided together
within the jurisdiction of this Court.
14. The plaintiff having knowledge that the Learned Court of Additional
District Judge, 1st Court, Paschim Bardhaman at Asansol is having
jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial suit and accordingly, the
plaintiff has filed a suit praying for dissolution of marriage between the
plaintiff and the defendant but inspite of having knowledge, the Learned
Court at Asansol is having jurisdiction, the plaintiff has filed the
present suit.
15. As per Section 31 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the concerned
District Court within the local limits of whose Original Civil
Jurisdiction, the marriage was solemnized, the defendant at the time of
presentation of petition resides, parties to marriage last resided together
or in the case of wife is the petitioner, where she residing on the date of
presentation of plaint but in the present case, none of the criteria
fulfills by the petitioner. The Jurisdictional District Court is only
empowered to receive, try and adjudicate any suit, petition of the
matrimonial proceedings.
16. The Judgment relied by the plaintiff in the case of Madhavendra L.
Bhatnagar (supra) is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances
of the present case. In the said case, the application was filed before the
concern District Judge but the same was refused and the High Court
has also refused to pass any order of stay of the proceeding. In the
present case, the plaintiff has filed the present suit before this Court
but this Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
17. In the case of Essel Sports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the defendant, against
whom injunction is sought, is amenable to the personal jurisdiction of
the Court but in the present case, the defendant is not in personal
jurisdiction of this Court.
18. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that
the suit being C.S. No. 10 of 2024 (Punit Rajgaria vs. Naina Agarwal) is
not maintainable before this Court as this Court is not having
jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff.
19. In view of the above, the suit filed by the plaintiff being C.S. No. 10 of
2024 (Punit Rajgaria vs. Naina Agarwal) is dismissed as not
maintainable. Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.
20. G.A. No. 2 of 2024 is allowed. G.A. No. 1 of 2024 and C.S. No. 10 of
2024 are dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has dismissed the
suit filed by the plaintiff only on the ground of maintainability and this
Court has not gone into the merit of the suit. Dismissal of the present
suit will not debar the plaintiff to take appropriate steps before the
appropriate Court having jurisdiction.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
