Rayden Solicitors successfully represents husband in reported case of QR v ST involving English and Indian court proceedings
Partner Lehna Gardiner and Senior Associate Bhini Phagura are pleased to have acted for the husband in the recently reported case of QR v ST (Divorce: Retrospective extension of time for Answer, Forum, and ASI) [2026] EWHC 1902 (Fam).
Background
Both the husband and wife were born in India. At the time of the divorce, they had lived in England for 20 years, were habitually resident here, and had three children born and educated here.
Our client issued a sole divorce application on 23 June 2025. His wife initially said she would not dispute it, and the court certified entitlement to a conditional order on 3 December 2025 to be pronounced on 23 December 2025.
Shortly before that date, our client’s wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights in New Delhi, India under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and then filed an Answer in the English divorce proceedings disputing jurisdiction. Our client’s wife also obtained an anti-suit injunction in India, seeking to prevent our client from pursuing the divorce in England.
Transfer to the High Court
Due to the cross-border elements and the complexity of the matter, we successfully sought a transfer of the case to the High Court. The case was heard by Mr Justice Poole on 25 June 2026, with specialist international divorce barrister Max Lewis of 29 Bedford Row representing our client.
Judge’s Decision
Our client’s wife had made an application to extend time (nearly five months late) to file her Answer seeking to prevent the divorce from going ahead. This was refused for serious and significant delay, with the court finding her arguments about why the proceedings should go ahead in India rather than England “extremely weak and lacking in merit”.
The court granted an anti‑suit injunction restraining our client’s wife from taking further steps in India affecting marital status until the final divorce order in England, finding the Indian proceedings oppressive and inconsistent with our client’s right to a no‑fault divorce here.
The judge invited our client’s wife to discharge the anti-suit injunction in India, and he determined that if she did not do so by 30 September, our client’s application for an anti‑anti‑suit injunction could be restored.
This successful outcome means that our client’s divorce in England can now proceed uninterrupted.
Conclusion
The decision provides useful guidance for international families. For families with connections to more than one country, the case illustrates the importance of obtaining early legal advice where competing jurisdictions and parallel proceedings arise, as strategic decisions made at an early stage can have significant consequences.
Rayden Solicitors are specialists in family law, with a wealth of experience in international divorce cases. Please contact Lehna Gardiner or Bhini Phagura who can advise you in relation to your specific circumstances.
