Back
Financial Difficulty Alone No Ground to Transfer Matrimonial Case from Bina:
The , in a recent ruling, dismissed a wife's petition seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Bina to Gwalior, holding that does not justify relocating a matrimonial case. The Single Bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali emphasized that when the respondent husband is willing to bear the wife's travel expenses and the location is well-connected, transfer on grounds of is unsustainable.
Background of the Case
The petitioner wife, a party to divorce proceedings under , pending before a court in Bina, filed a under . She sought to move the case to Gwalior, arguing that she faced financial difficulties and could not afford to travel to Bina for each hearing. She also expressed apprehension of potential mishap, though no formal complaint had been lodged.
The respondent husband contested the petition, submitting that Gwalior is well-connected by train to Bina and that he was ready to deposit funds to cover his wife's travel and related expenses. He further offered to ensure that the wife would not be handicapped in defending the proceedings due to financial constraints.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
The wife's counsel contended that the petitioner had no independent source of income and that repeated travel from Gwalior to Bina imposed an undue financial burden. Additionally, a vague safety concern was raised, but the counsel conceded that no incident of harassment had occurred nor any complaint made in the ongoing proceedings.
The husband's counsel countered that the wife had already attended court two to three times and had been permitted representation through an advocate. He highlighted that the wife's financial difficulty could be mitigated by the husband bearing costs, as directed by the trial court. The husband also pointed to the short distance and convenient rail connectivity between the two cities.
Legal Precedents and Analysis
The court examined the case in light of the 's ruling in Kulwinder Kaur (supra) and Gargi Konar (supra). In Gargi Konar , the Apex Court had categorically held that poor financial capacity of the wife is not a ground for transfer of matrimonial proceedings; instead, the husband can be directed to pay for her travel and stay. The relevant paragraphs from that judgment were reproduced:
"2. The only ground made out in the by the petitioner wife is that she is a helpless woman fully dependent upon her father and that her financial capacity is not such so that she can contest the proceedings in Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. 3. In our view, this is not a ground for transfer at all. The respondent can be directed to pay for her and her companion, to-and-fro and stay, expenses on every occasion on which she is required to travel..."
Justice Shrimali also considered the , observing that the wife had not demonstrated any tangible inconvenience beyond financial constraints. The court noted that the wife's allegations had not been denied by the husband, but that did not warrant a transfer.
Key Observations
In his order, Justice Shrimali remarked:
"Having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the considered view that in the present case the or inconvenience is in favour of the husband."
The court further noted that the wife had not made any complaint of mishap, and no such incident had occurred in the pending proceedings. The only expressed difficulty was financial, which the husband offered to address.
Court's Decision
The dismissed the , concluding that the wife failed to make out a case for shifting the proceedings from Bina to Gwalior. However, the court provided alternatives to ease the wife's participation: she may appear through a (legal aid counsel), via , or personally, in which case she can file an application for reimbursement of expenses. The trial court was directed to quantify and ensure payment of travel and stay costs for each appearance.
The ruling reaffirms that , absent other compelling factors, does not entitle a party to transfer matrimonial litigation. The decision underscores the principle that the convenience of both parties and the availability of logistical support must be weighed, and that a husband's willingness to bear expenses can neutralize a wife's .
