Foreign Divorce, Indian Court: Why the Same Marriage Can Look Different?
- Twinkle Khemka
- 1 day ago
- 5 min read
Most people assume divorce is a clean line.
You are married.
You go to court.
You are divorced.
Life moves on.
That assumption holds true, until a marriage crosses borders.
For many NRIs and internationally connected families, divorce does not end with a single order or a single court. Instead, people often find themselves in an unexpected situation: one country treats them as divorced, while another still treats them as married, or at least undecided.
This is not always because someone has done something wrong. Often, it happens because different legal systems are asking different questions at different stages of the dispute.
We regularly receive advisory requests from individuals who are:
pursuing divorce proceedings abroad while parallel cases continue in India,
facing objections in India even though a foreign court has already assumed jurisdiction, or
confused about why an Indian court has not “accepted” what appears to be a valid overseas process.
From the outside, this can feel inconsistent or even unfair. From the inside, it can feel paralysing. The natural question people ask at this stage is simple: If courts are looking at the same marriage, why don’t they give the same answer?
The answer lies not in contradiction, but in how and when courts are required to intervene, a distinction that becomes clearer when we look at how Indian courts approach cross-border divorce disputes.
When Courts Are Asked to Intervene Too Early
The real difficulty in cross-border divorce cases is not disagreement about divorce itself. It arises when courts are asked to step in before everything has played out.
In many situations, one spouse approaches an Indian court not to recognise a foreign divorce, but to stop the foreign proceedings altogether, often at a very early stage. This may be because:
proceedings have already begun in India,
the marriage was solemnised here, or
there is concern that a foreign court may eventually pass orders that are difficult to reconcile with Indian law.
At this point, the question before the Indian court is no longer “Is this divorce valid?” It becomes “Should this other court be allowed to continue at all?”
The Calcutta High Court: A Recent Illustration
A recent decision of the Calcutta High Court offers a useful illustration of how these issues arise and how courts sometimes respond to them.
The case is Vidushi Jain Bajoria v. Mihir Prakash Bajoria, decided by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 15 December 2025 (FMAT No. 466 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025; Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:2253-DB).
The facts followed a pattern familiar to many cross-border families. The marriage was solemnised in India under Hindu law. Both spouses had long-standing connections with the United Kingdom, where divorce and maintenance proceedings were initiated. Parallel proceedings were also pending before an Indian court.
While the foreign proceedings were still at an interim stage, one spouse sought an anti-suit injunction from the Indian court to restrain the continuation of the UK divorce and maintenance proceedings. An interim injunction was granted at the trial court level, effectively halting the foreign case.
When the matter reached the High Court, the focus shifted, not to the validity of any eventual foreign divorce, but to whether it was appropriate to stop those proceedings at that stage.
The Division Bench underscored that questions relating to recognition or conclusiveness of a foreign divorce arise only after a final judgment is passed, and that it would be premature to intervene mid-stream. As the Court observed:
“Be that as it may, fact remains that the deference to the principle of Comity of Courts, this Court is of the opinion that since the UK Family Court has already fixed the matter for adjusdication on teh issue of jurisdiction/forum, it would be inappropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction at this stage to stall such proceedings altogethter.” (para 71)
On this reasoning, the High Court set aside the injunction, emphasising judicial restraint and the importance of allowing jurisdictional issues to be addressed by the foreign court before Indian courts are called upon to examine recognition or enforceability.
When Courts Have Granted Anti-Suit Injunctions
At the same time, it would be incorrect to read this decision as suggesting that Indian courts will not grant anti-suit injunctions in cross-border divorce cases.
To understand why outcomes differ, it helps to look at situations where courts have affirmatively stepped in. A useful reference point is the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall (2021) 2 SCC 775).
In that case, the parties were married under Hindu law in India, and matrimonial proceedings were already pending before an Indian court. During this time, one spouse initiated divorce proceedings before a court in the State of Arizona in the United States, a forum with which the parties had limited connection.
What weighed with the Supreme Court was not merely the existence of foreign proceedings, but the surrounding circumstances. Jurisdictional objections had been raised before the Arizona court, which indicated that it intended to apply local state law without reference to the Hindu Marriage Act, governing the marriage in India. There was also concern that the foreign proceedings were being pressed forward despite parallel proceedings pending in India.
Against this background, the Supreme Court clarified that Indian courts are not powerless in such situations. It rejected the notion that the mere pendency of proceedings abroad bars an Indian court from granting an injunction, and on the facts before it, granted an interim anti-suit injunction restraining continuation of the foreign matrimonial proceedings.
Read together, decisions such as Lall and the Calcutta High Court ruling demonstrate that courts emphasise context over category. The question is not whether a divorce is foreign, but whether the specific circumstances justify intervention at that stage.
What emerges from these decisions is not inconsistency, but a consistent judicial approach rooted in caution.
Indian courts have neither shut the door on anti-suit injunctions in cross-border divorce cases, nor opened it indiscriminately. Instead, they have repeatedly emphasised that such matters must be examined case by case, with close attention to jurisdiction, timing, conduct of the parties, and the stage at which the court is approached.
For individuals navigating cross-border marital disputes, this can be unsettling. Outcomes may differ not because courts are uncertain, but because the questions placed before them differ, often in subtle but legally significant ways.
This is why informed legal advice plays a critical role in such matters. Not because there is a single “right” strategy, but because understanding which issue to raise, before which court, and at what stage can materially shape how a dispute unfolds. In cross-border family law, sequencing and context are often as important as substantive law.
As international mobility increases and personal relationships span jurisdictions, courts will continue to balance restraint with intervention. For those involved, approaching these issues with clarity, preparation, and appropriate legal guidance remains essential.
References
[1] Vidushi Jain Bajoria v. Mihir Prakash Bajoria, FMAT No. 466 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025, decided on 15 December 2025, 2025:CHC-AS:2253-DB (Calcutta High Court, Division Bench)
[2] Madhavendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall, (2021) 2 SCC 775
[3] Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451
[4] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[5] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Disclaimer
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an advocate–client relationship. The discussion is based solely on the judicial decisions and statutory provisions expressly referred to in the article, as understood at the time of publication. Legal outcomes in cross-border matrimonial disputes depend on the specific facts, procedural stage, and jurisdictioninvolved in each case. Readers are advised to seek independent professional legal advice before acting on any information contained herein. The author and the firm disclaim responsibility for any consequences arising from reliance on this material.
Comments