Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
AMRUTA BEN HIMANSHU KUMAR SHAH – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
HIMANSHU KUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH – RESPONDENTS
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2344 OF 2019
Decided On : 29-01-2021
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 24 read with Section 11 – Transfer of matrimonial Family Suit – Bar of Res Judicata – Dismissal of a petition for transfer may not operate as res judicata when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances – First transfer petition was dismissed in limine without even a notice being ordered to respondent – As such, present petition for transfer cannot be opposed solely on the ground that earlier petition was dismissed – However, petitioner will have to satisfy court that there are change of circumstances and that there are sufficient grounds made out – While hardship, both social and financial, pleaded by petitioner deserves favourable consideration, transfer of case at this stage of proceeding may not be appropriate – When a case is at its final stage, this Court will be extremely reluctant to order transfer, as it may derail entire process – Prayer for transfer rejected – Petitioner permitted to move an application for reopening of her evidence before family Court – Application may be allowed to be filed on line if such a facility is available – Else, it may be permitted to be filed through Counsel without petitioner having to undertake a travel – Family Court may take a lenient view on the application and have evidence on side of petitioner restored – On every occasion when family Court wants physical presence of petitioner, respondent shall pay sum of Rs.10,000/to petitioner, towards expenses for travel and stay. (Paras 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, has come up with the above petition seeking the transfer of Family Suit No. 33 of 2016 from the Family Court, Banaskantha, Palanpur, Gujarat, to a competent court in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner’s application for payment of travel allowance was rejected by the Family Court and petitioner moved the High Court by way of a special leave application. The fate of the same is not known. Even the copy of the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the Family Court rejecting prayer for travel allowance is not enclosed. However, it does not bar this Court from passing appropriate orders in the interest of justice. On all occasions except the date on which the petitioner is to be cross examined, the petitioner may be permitted by Family Court to be represented by a Counsel without being present. If Video Conferencing facility is available, petitioner may be granted said facility.
Result : Transfer Petition rejected.
ORDER :
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, has come up with the above petition seeking the transfer of Family Suit No. 33 of 2016 from the Family Court, Banaskantha, Palanpur, Gujarat, to a competent court in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. I have heard Mr. Harsh Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ranu Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 28.02.2002. Two children were born in the wedlock on 31.08.2007 and 27.01.2011.
4. Disputes arose, leading to the respondent filing a petition in HMP No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur, Gujarat, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition was transferred to the Family Court Banaskantha, Palanpur, Gujarat and renumbered as Family suit No. 33 of 2016.
5. The petitioner earlier came up with a transfer petition in T.P. (C) No.615 of 2016 seeking transfer of the said proceeding to a competent court in Mumbai. But it was dismissed by this Court by an order date 19.04.2016.
6. After three years of the dismissal of the said Transfer Petition, the petitioner has come up with the present Transfer Petition on the ground that there are change of circumstances warranting a fresh look. The change of circumstances pleaded by the petitioner are:
(i) that her mother died on 02.02.2017 leaving an emotional vacuum and also making it impossible to leave two minor daughter in Mumbai to attend to the hearings at Palanpur; and
(ii) that even the application filed by her before the Family Court, Palanpur to direct the respondent to provide the expenditure for her travel to Palanpur was dismissed and that the Family Court at Palanpur has also made it difficult for her to defend the case, by listing the case for hearing on 2 to 3 occasions every month and imposing penalties upon the petitioner whenever a request for adjournment is sought or when the Legal Aid lawyer appointed on her behalf did not attend the Court.
7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights have already reached the stage of judgment and that once a request for transfer got rejected on an earlier occasion, a second petition cannot be maintained.
8. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances. The first transfer petition in T.P.(C)No.615 of 2016 was dismissed in limine without even a notice being ordered to the respondent. The order dated 19.04.2016 dismissing the said Transfer Petition reads as follows:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The transfer petitioner is dismissed.
Application for stay also stands disposed of.”
9. Therefore, the present petition for transfer cannot be opposed solely on the ground that the earlier petition was dismissed. But at the same time, the petitioner will have to satisfy the court that there are change of circumstances and that there are sufficient grounds made out.
10. It appears that after the first Transfer Petition was dismissed on 19.04.2016, the pleadings in the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights got completed and the respondent-husband, who was the petitioner before the Family Court examined himself in chief on 11.07.2017 and 12.07.2017. He was cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner herein after more than 17 months, on 21.12.2018.
11. Thereafter the petitioner herein, who was the respondent before the Family Court filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 03.05.2019. However, the Family Court discarded the evidence of the petitioner herein and struck off her right of evidence by an order 22.07.2019. It is only thereafter that the petitioner has come up with the above Transfer Petition. The petitioner’s mother also passed away in 2017 and she was obviously un
(1) Dismissal of a petition for transfer may not operate as res judicata when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances.(2) While social and financial hardships pleaded by petitioner deser....
The convenience of the wife in matrimonial matters is a relevant consideration for transfer petitions, and transfer should be based on sufficiently cogent grounds and the balance of convenience of th....
The court established that the convenience of the wife is paramount when considering the transfer of Family Court cases, particularly in cases of hardship.
In matrimonial cases, the convenience of the wife is a paramount consideration when deciding on requests for the transfer of legal proceedings under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Court do not think mere temporary stay for some reasons cannot be the foundation for transferring matters pending before the competent jurisdiction filed by the petitioner, who is a permanent residen....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
