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

2003 Supreme(SC) 340

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
SMITA SHARMA - PETITIONER
VERSUS
VIVEK SHARMA - RESPONDENT
TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 761 OF 2002,
DECIDED ON MARCH 24, 2003

Headnote:TRANSFER PETITION ALLOWED

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top