A Constitutional Shield: Indian Woman Appeals to Supreme Court Against “Oppressive” U.S. Divorce Proceedings 

A Constitutional Shield: Indian Woman Appeals to Supreme Court Against “Oppressive” U.S. Divorce Proceedings 

In an unprecedented legal move that tests the boundaries of national jurisdiction and fundamental rights in an era of transnational marriages, an Indian woman from Tamil Nadu has approached the Supreme Court of India, not merely as a litigant but as a citizen pleading for constitutional protection. Her petition, filed under the powerful remedy of Article 32, seeks to restrain divorce proceedings initiated by her husband in a Family Court in Rhode Island, USA, framing the foreign case not as a private civil dispute but as a violation of her rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

This case, emerging from the quiet district of Kanniyakumari, has escalated into a significant legal confrontation, pitting the principles of Indian personal law and domicile against the complex web of international family law. At its heart, it challenges a growing trend where cross-border marital breakdowns become battles of jurisdictional advantage, often leaving the more vulnerable spouse, frequently the wife, stranded in a legal no-man’s land. 

The Human Story Behind the Legal Headlines 

According to the petition, the marriage was solemnized in January 2023 in Tamil Nadu under Indian Christian rites and registered under state law. The petitioner asserts her permanent domicile in India and states that her marriage is governed exclusively by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The narrative that unfolds is one of alleged systemic disempowerment: she was taken to the U.S. on a dependent visa, subjected to physical and emotional abuse, and coerced into parting with her stridhan (property gifted to a woman at marriage), gold jewellery, and documents. After her dependent visa expired in July 2024, leaving her without lawful status, the pressure intensified. 

Her return to India in March 2024 did not end her troubles, as she faced continued demands to transfer her Indian property. The situation reached a critical point in September 2025 when, she alleges, her husband brought her to India, abandoned her, and returned alone to the United States. After blocking communication in October 2025, he allegedly offered assurances of reconciliation in December, only for the petitioner to discover that he had already clandestinely instituted divorce proceedings in Rhode Island on October 30, 2025—without her consent or submission to that court’s jurisdiction. 

The Core Constitutional and Legal Challenge 

The petitioner’s move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a strategic and deliberate escalation. Her plea argues that ordinary remedies in Indian civil or family courts are “inadequate to restrain an ongoing foreign process.” By invoking the right to constitutional remedies directly, she posits that the foreign proceedings themselves are causing “irreparable constitutional injury.” 

The legal bedrock of her argument is the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi (1991). In this ruling, the Court established a stringent test for recognizing foreign matrimonial decrees in India. It held that such a decree is not binding unless: 

• The foreign court had jurisdiction as per the Indian personal law governing the parties. 

• The grounds for divorce are recognized under that same personal law. 

• The parties voluntarily and genuinely submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. 

The petitioner contends that none of these conditions are met. The marriage is governed by the Indian Divorce Act, she never submitted to the Rhode Island court’s jurisdiction, and any grounds for divorce pursued there would be “alien to Indian Christian matrimonial law.” Therefore, she argues, the proceedings are ex facie (on the face of it) without jurisdiction and void in India. 

Jurisdiction, Oppression, and the “Vexatious” Foreign Suit 

Beyond precedent, the petition taps into the equitable principle that Indian courts possess the inherent power to injunct parties from pursuing foreign proceedings that are “oppressive or vexatious.” The allegations of economic abuse, coercion, and the strategic timing of the U.S. lawsuit—initiated while holding out promises of reconciliation in India—are framed as classic hallmarks of such oppression. The petition suggests the foreign case is an “instrument of coercion and economic abuse,” designed to leverage the petitioner’s lack of presence and resources in the U.S. to secure a favourable, unchallenged decree. 

This raises a profound question: Can a citizen approach the highest court of the land to stop a legal process in another sovereign country? The petitioner’s request for a directive to the Union of India to take “appropriate diplomatic and protective measures” broadens the scope from a private dispute to a matter of state intervention for protecting a citizen’s rights. This transforms the case from a conflict between two individuals into a dialogue between legal systems. 

The Broader Implications: Sovereignty, Comity, and Citizen Protection 

This writ petition is more than a marital dispute; it is a microcosm of the challenges posed by globalized lives to localized personal laws. It forces a judicial examination of several critical issues: 

• The Sanctity of Domicile: In an age of easy travel and temporary visas, does permanent domicile—a cornerstone of matrimonial jurisdiction in Indian law—retain its meaning? The petitioner’s case rests heavily on her unwavering Indian domicile. 

• The Limits of Comity: The principle of comity—respecting the judgments of foreign courts—is not absolute. The Narasimha Rao case itself carved out an exception where fundamental tenets of Indian law and justice are bypassed. This petition pushes the Court to actively enforce that exception. 

• Article 32 as a Sword and Shield: Using a fundamental rights provision to strike at a foreign judicial proceeding is rare. The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify whether Article 32 can be deployed as a proactive shield against perceived extraterritorial threats to constitutional rights, especially for vulnerable individuals in transnational settings. 

• Forum Shopping and Power Imbalances: The case highlights the perils of “forum shopping,” where a spouse initiates proceedings in a jurisdiction perceived as faster, more favourable, or where the other spouse cannot effectively participate. The Indian judiciary’s response will signal its stance on curbing such tactical advantages that exacerbate power imbalances. 

A Waiting Nation and a Precedent in the Making 

As the Supreme Court considers this petition, its outcome will resonate with thousands in similar cross-border marital situations. A ruling in favour of the petitioner would reinforce the primacy of Indian personal law and domicile, empower vulnerable spouses, and set a high bar for the recognition of foreign divorce decrees. It would also be a bold assertion of the Constitution’s protective reach. 

Conversely, the Court must also weigh the complexities of international judicial coordination and the practicalities of enforcing an injunction against a proceeding in a foreign land. The response of the Rhode Island court to any potential injunction from the Indian Supreme Court would itself become a subject of international legal discourse. 

Ultimately, this case from Kanniyakumari is about where “home” is for the purpose of dissolving a marriage. Is it where a petition is first filed, or is it where the marriage was rooted, governed by the personal law that has always defined it, and where one party remains firmly anchored? The Supreme Court’s answer will define the legal homeland for countless Indian citizens in an increasingly borderless world.