SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 340

S.S.M.QUADRI, ASHOK BHAN
SMITA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
VIVEK SHARMA – Respondent


ORDER

1. THE PETITIONER SEEKS TRANSFER OF THE DIVORCE PETITION, MC NO. 650 OF 2002, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, TO THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT HARIDWAR.

2. THE PETITIONER SAYS THAT SHE IS LIVING AT ROORKEE, HARIDWAR, AND CANNOT UNDERTAKE THE JOURNEY OF OVER A THOUSAND KILOMETRES TO ATTEND THE CASE AT BANGALORE. IT IS HER CASE THAT SHE HAS NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME TO BEAR THE EXPENDITURE OF TRAVELLING.

3. THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, STATES THAT HE APPREHENDS DANGER TO HIS LIFE AT ROORKEE, HARIDWAR, AND THAT HE HAS UNDERGONE SURGERY AS HE HAD MET WITH AN ACCIDENT WHICH CAUSED INJURY TO HIS LEG. ON THESE GROUNDS, HE IS OPPOSING THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE.

4. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO TRANSFER THE DIVORCE PETITION, MC NO. 650 OF 2002, FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL. THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN, MAY HEAR THE CASE HIMSELF OR ASSIGN IT TO A COMPETENT COURT.

5. THE TRANSFER PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED.

6. NO COSTS.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top