Case Title:
N.C.V Aishwarya Vs A.S Saravana Karthik Sha
Date Of Order:
JULY 18, 2022
Judges:
Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and J.K. Maheshwari
Parties:
Petitioner: Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. Abhisar Thakral, Adv. Mr. S. Muthukrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Hemlata, Adv.
Respondent: Mr. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Prahu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr.
Raghunatha Sethupathy B., Adv. Mr. Shivani Vij, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
SUBJECT
In general, the wife's convenience must be taken into account when considering transfer petition and the Court must consider the predominate socioeconomic paradigm in Indian society.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A. Section 24
Any case may be transferred or withdrawn by the High Court or District Court at any time during the litigation, regardless of whether an appeal is still pending or not.
However, when cases are transferred to another court, that court must have the necessary expertise to handle the matter.
B. Section 125
This section talks about the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
2. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9
This section deals with restitution of conjugal rights
BRIEF FACTS
- A petition was filed by the appellant i.e., wife seeking transfer of a petition, F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 filed by the respondent i.e., her husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court in Chennai was denied by the High Court of Judicature in Madras in an order dated November 19, 2020.
- The appellant and respondent were married on March 5, 2020, at Kanna Mahal in Anna Salai, Vellore, in accordance with Hindu traditions. According to the respondent, the appellant started arguing and fighting with the respondent over trivial matters and refused to refused to consummate the marriage.
- Due to which, the respondent requested the Family Court in Vellore to dissolve their marriage in the aforementioned F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020.
- The appellant had brought two lawsuits. She has petitioned the Family Court in Chennai for support pursuant to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and H.M.O.P. No. 1741 of 2021 against her husband for the restoration of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The appellant claimed in her case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, among other things, that the respondent withdrew from her social life without a valid reason and that she was obligated to reside with the appellant and give her conjugal companionship.
- The appellant made the point that her parents were elderly and that, at age 21, she was unable to go on her own to Vellore for the duration of the court hearings.
- The appellant further claims that she would be unable to bring her elderly parents with her to Vellore. She is morally and financially entirely reliant on her parents. She has no other money source than being unemployed.
- Additionally, she lacks accommodations during her stay in Vellore. The petition has been contested by the respondent.
- The High Court thus dismissed the transfer petition.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The court noted that the pursuit of justice should necessitate the transfer of the suit, appeal, or other procedure as the fundamental rule for the exercise of authority under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The court also noted that in matrimonial cases, whenever courts are asked to consider the plea of transfer, the courts must take into account the financial soundness of both parties, the social standing and behavioural patterns of the spouses, their standard of living prior to and after marriage, and the circumstances of both parties in making a living and from whom they are seeking protection.
- Given the dominant socioeconomic paradigm in Indian society, the court remarked that, in most cases, the wife's convenience must be taken into account while considering transfer.
- Additionally, it is preferable that they be heard concurrently by the same judge in order to avoid multiple trials of the same problems and conflicts of decisions when there are two or more proceedings underway in different Courts involving the same parties that involve common questions of fact and law.
- As the court observed the was appellant 21 years old, unemployed, and completely dependent on her parents for her financial well-being, the court stated.
- The bench noted that because her parents are too old to accompany her, she must travel alone from Chennai to Vellore in order to attend the court hearings in the case that her husband filed there.
- The High Court's rejection of the appellant's transfer petition, TR.C.M.P.No.473 of 2020, was therefore declared by the court to be unjustified.
CONCLUSION
The appeal challenged the Madras HC ruling wherein the HC denied the wife's petition seeking transfer of a case, filed by her husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court at Chennai and was being heard by the panel of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer v. J.K. Maheshwari.
According to the Supreme Court, the primary rule guiding the use of authority under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the transfer of the lawsuit, appeal, or other process must be necessary to uphold the goals of justice.
This is way the Court held that, given the socioeconomic paradigm that now governs Indian culture, it is generally necessary to take the wife's comfort into account when thinking about a transfer.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
