Wife Moves Supreme Court Under Article 32 To Restrain Husband’s Divorce Proceedings in USA
From the Editors' Desk
An Indian woman has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge divorce proceedings her husband has filed before a Family Court in Rhode Island, United States. She contends the overseas case is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and that it infringes her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
In her petition, she argues that the foreign litigation is being pursued in a manner that is inherently oppressive and unconstitutional, and claims it is being used to pressure her financially and emotionally—amounting to coercion, extortion, and economic abuse. She relies on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi to submit that matrimonial disputes must be decided by a court that has proper jurisdiction under the parties’ governing personal law and domicile. “The foreign divorce proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, oppressive, and constitutionally impermissible. They are being employed as an instrument of coercion, extortion, and-economic abuse, directly violating the law laid down by this Honble Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, (1991) 3 SCC 451, which mandates that matrimonial disputes must be adjudicated by courts of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the governing personal law and domicile of the parties”, the plea states.
The writ petition has been filed by a woman from Kanniyakumari district, Tamil Nadu through Advocate-on-Record Subhasish Bhowmick. She has named the Union of India, her husband, and the Embassy of the United States of America in India as respondents.
She maintains that approaching ordinary civil or family courts in India would not provide effective relief against an ongoing process abroad, and that invoking Article 32 is necessary to prevent what she describes as irreversible constitutional harm. She has therefore sought a declaration that any decree issued by the foreign court should be treated as invalid and unenforceable in India, along with directions to the Union of India to take suitable diplomatic and protective steps to secure her rights.
According to the petition, the marriage was solemnised on January 6, 2023 at Devakottai in accordance with Indian Christian rites, and subsequently registered on January 9, 2023 under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. She states the relationship is governed solely by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and asserts that she remains permanently domiciled in India.
She further alleges that after she travelled to the United States on a dependent visa, she faced physical violence, emotional mistreatment, and financial exploitation. The petition claims she was compelled to relinquish her Indian property and hand over stridhan, gold jewellery, key documents, and items kept in a joint locker.
The petitioner states that when her dependent visa expired on July 18, 2024—leaving her without lawful immigration status—pressure on her allegedly intensified. She also claims that even after returning to India in March 2024, she continued to face demands to transfer property located in India.
She alleges that in September 2025, her husband brought her to India, left her behind, and returned alone to the United States. She says communication was cut off on October 28, 2025, when he allegedly blocked contact. The petition adds that in December 2025, her husband and father-in-law purportedly gave assurances of reconciliation and pushed for a settlement, which she says persuaded her not to initiate legal action in India at that stage.
Despite those alleged assurances, she claims her husband had already initiated divorce proceedings in Rhode Island on October 30, 2025, without her consent and without her submitting to that court’s authority.
Reiterating her reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 SCC 451 she argues that a foreign matrimonial decree cannot bind parties in India unless the foreign court’s jurisdiction aligns with the personal law applicable to them and the parties have voluntarily accepted that forum. “in the present case, the marriage is governed exclusively by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the Petitioner never voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Rhode Island Family Court, and the foreign proceedings are founded on grounds alien to Indian Christian matrimonial law. Hence, the proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction and void in India”, the plea states.
She has also cited additional precedents to support her submission that Indian courts may intervene to restrain foreign proceedings where they are vexatious or oppressive.
