An Indian woman has petitioned the Supreme Court of India to block divorce proceedings initiated by her husband in Rhode Island, citing jurisdictional issues and violations of her constitutional rights.
An Indian woman has approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking intervention in divorce proceedings initiated by her husband in the U.S. state of Rhode Island. In her petition, she contends that the American family court lacks jurisdiction over the matter and that proceeding with the case would infringe upon her fundamental rights under Indian law.
Filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the woman’s petition argues that allowing the divorce case to continue in the United States would violate her rights to equality before the law and personal liberty. She asserts that the divorce proceedings initiated abroad are without legal jurisdiction and therefore cannot be sustained.
The writ petition has been submitted by a woman from Kanyakumari district in Tamil Nadu, represented by advocate Shibha Shishpamik. The respondents in the case include the Union of India, her husband, and the U.S. Embassy in India.
In her plea, the woman argues that seeking relief from a civil or family court in India would not suffice to halt the ongoing case in the United States, leaving her with no effective recourse other than invoking Article 32. She emphasizes the need for this intervention to prevent irreparable harm to her constitutional rights.
She requests the court to declare any orders issued by the foreign court as null, void, and unenforceable in India, and to direct the Indian government to take appropriate diplomatic and protective measures to safeguard her rights.
The petition details that the couple married on January 6, 2023, in Kottai, Tamil Nadu, following Indian Christian customs, and that their marriage was officially registered three days later under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. The woman maintains that their marriage is governed solely by the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 and asserts that her permanent domicile remains in India.
According to her account, after traveling to the United States on a dependent visa, she experienced physical assault, emotional mistreatment, and financial exploitation. She alleges that she was coerced into relinquishing control of her Indian assets, including property, gold jewelry, personal documents, and items stored in a joint locker.
The petition further states that after her dependent visa expired on July 18, 2024, leaving her without valid immigration status, the pressure from her husband intensified. Even after her return to India in March 2024, she claims that demands for the transfer of her Indian property continued.
In September 2025, her husband allegedly brought her back to India, left her there, and returned to the United States alone. The petition claims that he severed all contact with her on October 28, 2025. In December 2025, her husband and his father reportedly approached her with promises of reconciliation and discussions of a possible settlement, which led her to refrain from initiating legal action in India at that time.
Despite these assurances, the petition alleges that on October 30, 2025, her husband secretly initiated divorce proceedings in a family court in Rhode Island without her consent or any submission on her part to that court’s authority. She argues that the foreign divorce case lacks jurisdiction and is therefore invalid.
To support her claims, the petitioner cites a 1991 Supreme Court ruling in Vainasimha R.V. Y. Venkatalakshmi, which established that a foreign matrimonial judgment does not bind parties in India unless the court abroad has jurisdiction under the personal law governing the marriage and the parties have voluntarily accepted that jurisdiction. She argues that neither condition is satisfied in her case.
The woman maintains that her marriage is governed solely by the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, that she never agreed to the authority of the Rhode Island Family Court, and that the grounds cited in the U.S. case do not align with Indian Christian matrimonial law. Thus, she contends that the foreign proceedings are clearly without jurisdiction and void in India.
Additionally, the petition references other legal precedents to argue that Indian courts have the authority to intervene and restrain foreign proceedings that are deemed oppressive or vexatious.
This case highlights the complexities of international divorce proceedings and the legal challenges faced by individuals navigating multiple jurisdictions. The Supreme Court’s decision will be closely watched as it addresses the intersection of Indian law and foreign legal systems.
According to The American Bazaar, the outcome of this petition could have significant implications for similar cases involving cross-border marital disputes.