1. Transfer petition by wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Jaipur to Bhiwani due to hardship. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1791
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Phukan : S.S.M.Quadri
Anuradha Dalal
Versus
Rohit Dalal
Case No. : 458 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/13/00
Important Points
The court may transfer family court proceedings to a neutral location upon the mutual agreement of the parties to alleviate hardships associated with travel and procedural restrictions.
Subject
Family Law - Transfer Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Family Law - Transfer of proceedings - Hardship caused by distance and procedural rules prohibiting legal practitioners - Mutual agreement of parties to transfer case to a neutral city. (Paras 2, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the wife, sought transfer of a family court proceeding from a city in one state to another city in a different state, citing significant travel distance and the requirement for personal attendance on all dates due to a ban on advocates in the current court. The respondent opposed the transfer to the requested city, citing potential influence of the petitioner's family. Eventually, both parties agreed to transfer the proceedings to a court in a different neutral city.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the hardship faced by the petitioner and the mutual consent of the parties to move the case to a neutral venue to resolve the dispute.
Issues: Whether the matrimonial proceeding should be transferred to a different court to avoid hardship and ensure a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: When parties to a matrimonial proceeding agree on a neutral location for the trial to mitigate hardship and concerns of influence, the court may exercise its power to transfer the case to that agreed-upon jurisdiction. (Para 4)
Result: Transfer Petition allowed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, the wife, sought transfer of a family court proceeding from a city in one state to another city in a different state, citing significant travel distance and the requirement for personal attendance on all dates due to a ban on advocates in the current court. The respondent opposed the transfer to the requested city, citing potential influence of the petitioner's family. Eventually, both parties agreed to transfer the proceedings to a court in a different neutral city.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the hardship faced by the petitioner and the mutual consent of the parties to move the case to a neutral venue to resolve the dispute.
Issues: Whether the matrimonial proceeding should be transferred to a different court to avoid hardship and ensure a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: When parties to a matrimonial proceeding agree on a neutral location for the trial to mitigate hardship and concerns of influence, the court may exercise its power to transfer the case to that agreed-upon jurisdiction. (Para 4)
Result: Transfer Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued hardship due to distance and personal attendance; respondent opposed citing petitioner's father's influence in Bhiwani. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Parties present in person at Jaipur; agreed to transfer case to any court in Delhi. (Para 4 )
4. Court may transfer a case where parties agree to a mutually convenient venue. (Para 4 )
5. Transferred case from Family Court Jaipur to District Judge at Tis Hazari, Delhi. (Para 4 )
6. Can a court transfer a matrimonial case on grounds of hardship to the wife?
Yes, the court may transfer a case when the wife faces hardship due to distance and the requirement of personal attendance. (Para 2 , 4 )
7. Can parties jointly agree to a transfer venue different from that sought by the petitioner?
Yes, the court may order transfer to a venue mutually agreed upon by the parties. (Para 4 )
S.N.PHUKAN, J.
(1) THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She seeks transfer of Application No. 145 of 1998 (titled Major Rohit Dalal v. Anuradha Dalal) pending in the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur (Rajasthan) to the Competent Court of District Judge at Bhiwani (Haryana).
(2) THE grounds on which transfer of the case is sought is that she is living in Bhiwani (Haryana) and has to travel a distance of 300 k.m. (one way) which takes about 8 hours to reach Jaipur; that since in the Family Court at Jaipur advocates are not permitted, she has to attend on every date of hearing which is causing great hardship. The respondent, it is submitted, is also not residing in Jaipur but is residing at different places for discharging his official duties. Therefore, it would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent also.
(3) IN the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent, it is not disputed that in Jaipur the parties have to be present in person and the advocates are not permitted. However, what is stated is that the father of the petitioner have lot of influence and, therefore, it would not be conducive for the respondent to have the proceedings conducted in Bhiwani, which fact is denied by the petitioner.
(4) THE learned counsel for the parties, however, agreed that instead of Bhiwani the case may be transferred to any Court in Delhi. For the aforementioned reasons, we order transfer Application No. 145/98 to the District Judge. Tis Hazari, Delhi, who may try the case himself or allocate it to some other competent Judge for trial. The Transfer Petition is allowed accordingly.
