PONTY SINGH Vs. ANU SINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order dated January 06, 2014 the learned Single Judge has dismissed CS (OS) 820/2012 opining it to be infructuous for the reason in the suit filed by the appellant, in which his wife was a defendant, prayer made was to restrain the wife from initiating any proceedings against the appellant in Singapore. Before summons in the anti suit injunction filed by the appellant was served upon the respondent she had already initiated divorce proceedings in a Court at Singapore and had obtained a Mareva injunction freezing bank accounts of the appellant. The learned Single Judge noted that in spite of said fact being in the knowledge of the appellant he did not bother to amend the plaint to pray that his wife be restrained from continuing with the divorce proceedings she had initiated in Singapore. The learned Single Judge has also noted the contentions of the respondent that in the plaint instituted in India the relief prayed for was on the principle invoking Forum non- convenience i.e. that Courts in India would be the proper and convenient Forum to resolve the dispute between the parties and Courts at Singapore would be a Forum of inconvenience, and that on said ground appellant had moved the Court at Singapore and thus the Court in India should not decide said issue. But we find no conclusive finding returned by the learned Single Judge with reference to said argument. Of course, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that whether or not the Court at Singapore was the proper and convenient Forum had to be decided by the Court at Singapore because appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court at Singapore. The impugned judgment would reveal that backdrop facts with contentions advanced have been noted till paragraph 15 of the impugned decision and the reason for dismissing the suit is in paras 16 to 18 of the impugned decision which read as under:-

(2.) The relevant facts would be that appellant and respondent were married at New Delhi as per Sikh rites and customs on December 20, 1999. At that time appellant was residing in London. After marriage the respondent also moved to the United Kingdom where the two resided as husband and wife till the year 2005 when both, on obtaining permanent residence in the United Kingdom, acquired British citizenship on or around November 2005. Baby Zoya was born as a British citizen to them. In August 2005 appellant got a job at Hongkong and after a few months the respondent with the baby joined the appellant at Hongkong where the two resided till when in or around April 2008 the appellant along with his wife and child moved to Singapore; holding a permanent resident card. A second child baby Anaya Singh was born as a British citizen in June 2008. Since April 2008 the family lived in Singapore.

(3.) On February 04, 2012, by a return ticket booked by the appellant with the date of return being March 16, 2012, the respondent and her children came to New Delhi along with the appellant. Whereas the respondent and the children returned to Singapore on March 16, 2012, the appellant continued to reside at Delhi and on March 27, 2012; making a brief visit in between to Singapore and he instituted the suit pleading that he and the respondent were married as per the Sikh rites and customs at New Delhi on December 20, 1999. He pleaded that two children named Zoya and Ananya Singh were born. He pleaded that the parties had taken British citizenship and had moved to Hongkong and then to Singapore. He pleaded that the respondent had become alcoholic and was cruel towards him. He pleaded that on March 14, 2012 he had sought divorce on grounds of cruelty from his wife. He pleaded that Courts in India could grant him the decree because the parties were married in Delhi; and we need to highlight that the appellant did not plead in the suit that he had invoked jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi to annulled their marriage on the basis of domicile. He pleaded that to amicably resolve the disputes the parties came to India on February 04, 2012 but could not resolve their disputes and thus the appellant had to file the petition seeking divorce. The appellant pleaded that he apprehended that the respondent would initiate proceedings in Singapore. After pleading as aforesaid till para 21 of the plaint, in paras 22 and 25 appellant pleaded as under:-