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

2011 Supreme(SC) 1145

2011 (8) Supreme 393
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Deepti Bhandari — Petitioner
versus
Nitin Bhandari & Anr. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5213 of 2010
with
Transfer Petition (C) No.856-857 of 2010
Decided on : 14-12-2011

Headnote:Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-Section 25- Hindu Marriage Act -Section 9 -Parties married each other according to Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan - A girl child, was born prematurely to the couple - Petitioner was compelled to leave matrimonial home and return to her parents - Complaint and counter complaints filed by both parties-When matter came before High Court it directed Petitioner and Respondent No.1 to apply for divorce by mutual consent - High Court also passed orders allowing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1, husband, in respect of minor child- Petitioner’s case that since she had shifted to Delhi she moved an application in High Court , for shifting place of visitation to Delhi- Said application was disallowed by High Court - Special Leave Petition thereagainst- Petitioner also filed Transfer Petitions for transfer of Cases filed by respondent from Family Court at Jaipur to a Family Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi- It is true that transfer of several cases to Delhi is likely to cause some inconvenience to Respondent No.1 and his family members, but it cannot be denied that it would be easier for Respondent No.1 to attend to proceedings in Delhi than for Petitioner to attend to same in Jaipur, while staying in Delhi with her minor child- Direction given to Respondent No.1 to make an effort to meet his minor child in Delhi - Petitioner to ensure that child was able to meet her father in terms of order of this Court on all weekends in New Delhi -Special leave petition and transfer petition allowed (Paras 13 to 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        A. Parties herein in the instant case married each other according to Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. A girl child, was born prematurely to the couple. Petitioner was compelled to leave matrimonial home and return to her parents on account of alleged physical and mental cruelty inflicted on her. Complaint and counter complaints were filed by both parties.

        B. When matter came before High Court it directed Petitioner and Respondent No.1 to settle their disputes and to apply for divorce by mutual consent. High Court also passed orders allowing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1, husband, in respect of minor child.

        C. Petitioner’s case that since she had shifted to Delhi order directing visitation rights to Respondent No.1 to meet the minor child at Jaipur in the office of counsel for Respondent No.1 became extremely difficult for her. Petitioner thereupon moved an application in the High Court , for shifting the place of visitation to Delhi. The said application was disallowed by High Court .

        D. Present Special leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court. Petitioner also filed Transfer Petitions for transfer of Cases filed by respondent from Family Court at Jaipur to a Family Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi.

       Findings of the Court :

        A. It is true that transfer of several cases to Delhi is likely to cause some inconvenience to Respondent No.1 and his family members, but it cannot be denied that it would be easier for Respondent No.1 to attend to proceedings in Delhi than for Petitioner to attend to same in Jaipur, while staying in Delhi with her minor child. No substance found in the persistent demand of Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to meet the Petitioner and their minor child at Jaipur to enable him and his family members to meet the child on a regular basis.

        B. On the contrary direction given that it is the Respondent No.1 who should make an effort to meet his minor child in Delhi as and when he wishes to do so. The Petitioner can have no objection whatsoever to such an arrangement and must also ensure that the child is able to meet her father in terms of order of this Court on all weekends in New Delhi instead of the second and fourth Saturday of each month. Special leave petition and transfer petition allowed.

       

ORDER

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each other according to Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 20th February, 2007. A girl child, Mannat, was born prematurely to the couple on 3rd April, 2008, and had to be kept in incubator for about three weeks. It is the Petitioner’s grievance that while they were on their honeymoon in Mauritius, the Respondent No.1, husband, began to treat her with physical and mental cruelty. Even during her pregnancy, she was ill-treated. Ultimately, being unable to withstand the physical and mental cruelty inflicted both on the Petitioner and her minor daughter, the Petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents on 7th October, 2008.

2. On 6th December, 2008, the Respondent No.1, husband, filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Case No.609 of 2008) against the Petitioner, for restitution of conjugal rights. Unable to bear the shock of the incidents, which had taken place since the Petitioner’s marriage with the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner’s grandparents suffered heart and paralytic attacks, as a result of which they have become completely bed-ridden. According to the Petitioner, on account of the cruelty meted out to her and the child, the Petitioner filed FIR No.7 of 2009 complaining of offences alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC.

3. It is the Petitioner’s further case that in order to settle the matter peacefully, the Petitioner entered into a compromise with the Respondent No.1 on 25th February, 2009, so that she could start her life all over again and to acquire financial independence to provide for herself and for providing proper care to the child on her own. Pursuant to the terms of the compromise, the Petitioner withdrew her complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, but the Respondent No.1 failed to appear before the Family Court No.2 at Jaipur on 2nd December, 2010, to present a Petition for mutual divorce, as had been agreed upon in the compromise.

4. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on 5th May, 2009, the Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent No.1 and his family members under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as ‘PWD Act’) before the Upper Civil Judge (A,B) and Judicial Magistrate Serial No.18 Jaipur City, Jaipur, being Criminal Legal Case No.13 of 2009. Soon, thereafter, on 1st June, 2009, charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent No.1 and his family members in FIR No.7 of 2009 which had been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The next day, on 2nd June, 2009, the Respondent No.1, husband, moved an application under Section 21 of the above Act for visitation rights, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

5. The Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009 on 25th August, 2009 against the aforesaid order dated 2nd June, 2009, before the Court of Upper District Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which dismissed the same.

6. On 18th September, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1977 of 2009) for quashing of the charge-sheet in FIR No.7 of 2009 and further proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, No.15, Jaipur City, Jaipur, were stayed therein. On 7th October, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed another Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2139 of 2009) for quashing of Criminal Legal Case No.13 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005. The High Court also stayed the said proceedings pending before the Upper Civil Judge (A,B) and Judicial Magistrate, Serial No.18, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

7. On 22nd January, 2010, when both the matters came up before the High Court for consideration, the High Court directed the Petitioner and













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top