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

2021 Supreme(SC) 1076

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Rachna - Petitioner
Versus
Ashok - Respondent
Transfer Petition (Civil) No.420 of 2020
Decided On : 22-11-2021

The court has the discretion to transfer a marriage case from one jurisdiction to another under the Hindu Marriage Act, considering the convenience and practicality for the parties involved.

Headnote:

Transfer - Hindu Marriage Act - The court allowed the transfer of a marriage case from Ambah, M.P. to Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, considering the petitioner's inability to travel the long distance for the proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-wife sought transfer of a marriage case from Ambah, M.P. to Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, due to the distance and inconvenience of traveling for the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found it just and appropriate to transfer the case to the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, considering the petitioner's inability to travel to Ambah, M.P. for the proceedings.

Issues: Transfer of marriage case under Hindu Marriage Act from one jurisdiction to another due to petitioner's inability to travel for proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's plea and the inconvenience caused by the distance between the petitioner's residence and the court where the case was filed, leading to the decision to allow the transfer.

Final Decision: The petition for transfer was allowed, and the case titled as “Ashok vs. Rachna Devi” was transferred to the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

ORDER :

1. This petition has filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of HMA No. 67 of 2019 titled as “Ashok vs. Rachna Devi” under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambah, M.P. to the Learned Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

2. Respondent was served on 10th June, 2020.

3. By Order dated 08th November, 2021, Office was directed to ascertain whether the vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the Respondent and if so, to put up in the next date of hearing. It is noted that there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

4. In the said circumstances, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case has been filed by the respondent in Ambah in the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambah, M.P., while the petitioner is residing in Delhi which is a distance of about 800 Km. That it is not possible for the petitioner to travel all the way to Ambah District of M.P., for the purpose of defending the aforesaid case. In such circumstances, the transfer of aforesaid petition has been sought.

6. As already noted, despite respondent being served, there is no representation.

7. Having regard to the facts pleaded in the petition and on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that it is just and appropriate to transfer HMA NO. 67 of 2019 titled as “Ashok vs. Rachna Devi” to the Learned Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

8. Ordered accordingly.

9. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid terms.

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 Back to top