Delhi High Court Restrains Husband From Pursuing Matrimonial Case In Canada During Pendency Of Divorce Petition Filed By Wife In India

Case: Damini Manchanda V. Avinash Bhambhani

Coram: Justice Amit Bansal

Case No.: CS(OS) 13/2022

Court Observation: “It is clear from the above, that the defendant has deliberately avoided service in the divorce petition in order to file divorce case before the Canadian Courts. Perhaps, the defendant believed that the matrimonial laws in Canada would be more advantageous to him as compared to the Indian law.”

“The Court takes a serious view of the matter that the defendant has deliberately avoided service in the divorce proceedings in India, but continues to pursue the divorce case filed by him before the Canadian Court. Despite service in the present matter and being aware of the present proceedings, the defendant refuses to appear before this Court.”

“This is clearly an erroneous statement issued by the advocate of the defendant. Records of the case show that though the Court did not grant ex- parte ad interim injunction on 12th January, 2022, the application was not dismissed by this Court and notice was issued to the defendant. In fact, this very application is now being considered by me,”

“This Court is shocked that a counsel practicing in India has given such an opinion which is completely contrary to the record of the case and that too by misquoting and selectively quoting the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court.”

“Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the defendant is amenable to jurisdiction of this court. Further, in my view, ends of justice will be defeated if the anti-suit injunction is not granted. The defendant has deliberately chosen not to appear in the present proceedings as well as the divorce proceedings filed on behalf of the plaintiff in India and at the same time pursuing the divorce proceedings before the Canadian Courts,”

Previous Posts

Drugs & Cosmetics Act: Complainant Must Prove “Exclusive Possession” Of Premises By Accused From Where Recovery Is Made: Telangana High Court

Licence Under Places Of Public Resort Act Is Compulsory To Run A Gym: Kerala High Court

Hindu Marriage Act: Able-Bodied Husband Having Earning Capacity Can’t Seek Permanent Alimony From Wife: Karnataka High Court

Only God Can Save These Types Of Lawyers: Kerala High Court After Advocate Argues Against Interest Of His Client

Employment Conditions Can’t Take Away Employees’ Right To Seek Judicial Review Of Employer’s Actions: J&K&L High Court

Section 8 Application Should Be Filed Within Time Available For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Married Woman Wilfully Cohabitating With Another Man Can’t Prosecute Him For Rape Under False Promise Of Marriage: Telangana High Court

S.354 IPC Not Attracted If Woman Herself Didn’t Perceive The Act Of ‘Catching Hold Of Her Hand’ As Invading Her Decency: Telangana High Court

Pre-Condition Of Filing Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Not Fulfilled When Statutory Notice Of Demand Sent On Wrong Address: J&K&L High Court

Person Who Secures Appointment On The Basis Of A False Caste Certificate Cannot Be Permitted To Retain Benefit Of Wrongful Appointment: Supreme Court

Appeal Against Environmental Clearance Granted to Vishakapatnam Greenfield International Airport Restored By Supreme Court Before NGT Download Judgement

Keywords

Pursuing Matrimonial Case, Divorce Petition Filed By Wife