New Delhi: In a significant legal development involving cross-border matrimonial disputes, an Indian woman has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking to restrain her husband from pursuing divorce proceedings in a US court.

The petitioner, a resident of Tamil Nadu, has filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the foreign proceedings are not only without jurisdiction but also violate her fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and life and liberty (Article 21).

The case brings back into focus the landmark 1991 judgment of the Supreme Court in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, which governs the validity of foreign divorce decrees in India.

The petitioner was married on January 6, 2023, in Devakottai, Tamil Nadu, according to Indian Christian rites. The marriage was subsequently registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009.

The crux of the wife’s argument is that since the marriage was solemnized in India under Indian laws, it is exclusively governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. She asserts that she remains a permanent domicile of India and has never voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Family Court in the State of Rhode Island, USA, where her husband has initiated divorce proceedings.

In her plea filed through Advocate-on-Record Subhasish Bhowmick, the woman alleges:

"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."

The petition paints a distressing picture of the events leading up to the Supreme Court move. According to the petitioner, after moving to the United States on a dependent visa, she was subjected to physical violence and emotional abuse. She further claims she was coerced into parting with her Indian property, stridhan (traditional wedding gifts), jewelry, and important documents.

The timeline of the dispute is particularly striking:

March 2024: The petitioner returned to India.
July 2024: Her US dependent visa expired, leaving her without lawful immigration status.
September 2025: The husband allegedly brought her back to India, abandoned her, and returned to the US alone.
October 2025: Communication was abruptly cut off.
December 2025: The petitioner claims that while her husband and his father were assuring her of a "reconciliation" to prevent her from filing cases in India, the husband had already "clandestinely" filed for divorce in Rhode Island on October 30, 2025.

One might wonder why the petitioner approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 (the right to constitutional remedies) rather than filing a standard civil suit in a lower court to seek an anti-suit injunction.

The petition explains that ordinary remedies in family courts are "inadequate" to restrain a fast-moving foreign legal process. It argues that recourse to the Supreme Court is the only "efficacious remedy" to prevent "irreparable constitutional injury." By naming the Union of India and the Embassy of the United States of America as respondents, the petitioner is seeking more than just a private order; she is asking for a declaration that any decree passed by the Rhode Island court be declared null and void in India.

The petition heavily relies on the Supreme Court's 1991 ruling in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi. In that case, the apex court laid down clear rules for when a foreign divorce is valid in India:

Jurisdiction: The foreign court must have jurisdiction that is recognized by the personal law under which the parties were married.
Voluntary Submission: The party resisting the divorce must have voluntarily submitted to the foreign court’s jurisdiction.
Grounds of Divorce: The grounds on which the foreign divorce is sought must be grounds available under the Indian law governing the marriage.

The petitioner argues that the Rhode Island proceedings fail on all three counts. She contends that the "no-fault" or alternate grounds often used in US courts are "alien to Indian Christian matrimonial law" and therefore cannot be used to dissolve a marriage performed under the Indian Divorce Act.

Beyond the legal stay on the divorce, the petitioner has sought a direction to the Union of India to take "appropriate diplomatic and protective measures." This highlights the growing complexity of "NRI marriages," where one spouse utilizes a foreign legal system to bypass the protections offered to the other spouse under Indian law.

The petitioner argues that allowing the US court to proceed would result in "economic exploitation," as she is unable to defend herself in a foreign land due to her lack of a visa and financial resources.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal hurdles faced by Indian citizens in transnational marriages. If the Supreme Court entertains this writ, it could set a new precedent for how India protects its citizens from "oppressive" foreign litigations that ignore Indian personal laws.

For now, the petitioner awaits a hearing, seeking a declaration that her marriage remains valid under Indian law regardless of any "void" decree that may emerge from the shores of Rhode Island.

Case Details: Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner: Subhasish Bhowmick, AoR.