Foreign Courts Lack Jurisdiction Over Divorce, Maintenance if Marriage Took Place in India: Calcutta High Court

In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for cross-border matrimonial disputes, the Calcutta High Court has held that foreign courts cannot adjudicate divorce or maintenance matters when the marriage was solemnised in India and both spouses are Indian residents, unless specific jurisdictional conditions are met.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharyya, in an order dated December 15, set aside an earlier order of a lower court that had favoured the wife and stayed the maintenance order passed by a UK family court.

The court observed that under the Hindu Marriage Act, jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial disputes lies with the district court within whose local limits the parties last resided together as husband and wife. The Bench clarified that the term “district court” under the Act refers to Indian courts and not foreign judicial authorities.

Case Background

The couple was married in Kolkata on December 15, 2018. After marriage, the wife travelled to the United Kingdom for higher studies. Soon thereafter, disputes arose between the parties.

On September 4, 2024, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Alipore District Court in Kolkata. Subsequently, on October 10, 2024, the wife approached a UK court seeking divorce, followed by a maintenance application the next day.

On May 16, 2025, a UK family court directed the husband to pay heavy maintenance, an amount that the Indian courts later described as excessive and oppressive, allegedly exceeding the husband’s income.

Lower Court’s Findings

On November 1, 2025, the Alipore District Court stayed the UK court’s maintenance order, holding that the wife could not continue parallel proceedings abroad. The court reasoned that the husband had initiated divorce proceedings first in India, and that the UK court lacked jurisdiction as the wife was not a permanent resident of the UK.

High Court’s Observations

Challenging this decision, the wife moved the Calcutta High Court. While the High Court upheld the stay on the UK court’s maintenance order, it made important observations on jurisdiction.

The Bench noted that although the Hindu Marriage Act primarily confers jurisdiction on Indian courts, a foreign family court may have jurisdiction in a liberal and meaningful sense if it is prima facie established that:

• One of the spouses is residing abroad, and
• Both parties last cohabited as husband and wife in that foreign jurisdiction.

The judges further clarified that it cannot be conclusively stated at this stage that any final decree passed by the UK court would automatically be unenforceable in India.

Importantly, the High Court observed that the husband had participated in the UK proceedings by filing replies and leading evidence, and therefore it could not be assumed that he was unable or unwilling to contest the divorce and maintenance claims abroad.

Legal Significance

The ruling underscores the principle that mere residence abroad does not automatically confer jurisdiction on foreign courts in matrimonial disputes involving Indian citizens. At the same time, it leaves room for case-specific evaluation where substantial marital ties or last shared residence abroad can be established.

Legal experts believe the judgment will serve as a key precedent in cases involving NRI marriages and parallel divorce and maintenance proceedings in India and overseas jurisdictions.