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

2017 Supreme(SC) 1253

KURIAN JOSEPH, R.BANUMATHI
MAMTA SAHU – Appellant
Versus
JAYENDRA SAHU – Respondent


ORDER :

KURIAN, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in-person.

2. The petitioner is also present in person.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in-person and gone through this transfer petition filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner has a daughter of three years old and it will be difficult for her to travel to Pune along with her daughter, we deem it fit and proper to transfer M.P. No.744 of 2015 titled Jayendra Sahu v. Mamta Sahu from Family Court, Pune, Maharashtra to Family Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. We order accordingly.

5. The transfer petition is, accordingly, allowed.

6. The Registry is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to both the Courts.

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