The High Court of Kerela recently delivered a judgement in the case of Archana Pius v/s Shine; OP (FC) NO. 274 OF 2023, where it was held that an anti-suit injunction can only be maintained against properties held in India and would not apply to Canadian properties.
The case involved a dispute between a husband and wife who had migrated to Canada and acquired properties there. The wife had filed for divorce in Canada and the husband had filed a suit in India claiming partition of the properties held jointly by them. The wife sought an anti-suit injunction against the husband’s suit in India, which was rejected by the lower court.
The High Court, while hearing the appeal, considered the question of whether an anti-suit injunction can be maintained against a spouse who had instituted a suit in Canada. The Hon’ble Court held that the majority of the reliefs claimed in the Canadian court cannot be entertained in any suit by the courts in India except the claim with regard to the property. The Canadian Court would not have jurisdiction with regard to the property/properties located in India.
The Hon’ble Court also noted that the principles of anti-suit injunction as laid down in the case of Dinesh Singh Thakur v/s Sonal Thakur; [2018 KHC 6299] would not strictly apply in this case as the relief sought by the wife was not maintainable under Section 41 of the Specific Reliefs Act.
Therefore, the High Court of Kerela modified the order of the lower court and injuncted the husband from staking a claim in respect of properties in joint ownership or in individual names situated in India. However, the Court also clarified that as regards other reliefs or reliefs with regard to the property in Canada, there shall be no such injunction.

Author of this article:
Adv. Ravish Bhatt,
Partner, R&D Law Chambers,
Dual Qualified Lawyer Solicitor | International Tax Affiliate

Connect with Mr. Bhatt on Linkedin:

  • Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader or user should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information written above without first seeking legal advice from qualified law practitioner.