AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard, Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Deepak Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent.
Respondent-husband has instituted Divorce Petition (A) No. 341 of 2023 against the Applicant-wife, at the Family Court, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
By this Application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“C.P.C.”), Applicant is before this Court seeking the following substantive relief in prayer clause (a), reproduced verbatim as follows:
“ a. The record and proceedings of the Petition (A) Case Number 341 of 2023 filed by the Respondent in the court of Ld. Family Court at Belapur at Navi Mumbai may kindly be transferred to the Ld. Family Court at Solapur;”
Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the grounds for seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition (A) No. 341 of 2023, filed by the Respondent in the Family Court, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, to the Family Court, Solapur, are twofold: (i) inconvenience caused to the Applicant in traveling from Solapur to Belapur; and (ii) the Applicant has no source of income of her own.
Mr. Deepak Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, tenders the medical case papers of the Respondent, same are taken on record and marked with “X colly” for identification. Copies of the documents (X colly) are handed over to Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Deepak Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, by referring to the documents (X colly), submits that the Respondent is suffering from Lumbar Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc (“slipped disc”). He submits that, in view of the said situation, it is difficult for the Respondent to travel long distances. He submits that, given the situation, the Respondent would not be able to travel to Solapur to attend the Divorce Petition instituted by him.
Mr. Deepak Patil, therefore, on instructions from the Respondent, made an offer that the Respondent shall bear the entire travel expenses as well as the lodging and boarding expenses for the date of hearing when the Applicant's presence is required before the Family Court, Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
In view of the said offer, Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, sought a passover to take instructions from the Applicant on the said offer and to suggest the quantum of the amount which the Respondent should pay on the date of hearing fixed in Belapur, Navi Mumbai, on which the Applicant is required to attend the Court. At her request, this Application was kept back.
After some time, at the request of Ms. Ruchi Patil, this Application was taken up.
Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that the Applicant has declined the offer made by the Respondent. She further states that the Applicant insists on pressing prayer clause (a) of this Application, i.e. the transfer of the divorce proceedings from Belapur, Navi Mumbai, to Solapur.
Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the contention of Mr. Deepak Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, that the Respondent has a slipped disc, is not borne out by the record. Ms. Ruchi Patil disputes the documents (X colly).
Mr. Deepak Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondent, submits that the Applicant has herself filed another criminal proceeding against the Respondent, alleging an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which proceedings are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belapur, Navi Mumbai (“JMFC Belapur, Navi Mumbai”). He submits that the Applicant's conduct is mala fide, intended to harass and cause physical and medical inconvenience to the Respondent. He further submits that the Applicant has gone to the extent of disputing the medical papers (X colly) without offering any ground or reason for raising the said dispute.
Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates.
The cardinal principle for the exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, when Courts are called upon to consider a plea of transfer, they must take into account the economic soundness of both parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern.
Though Ms Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submitted that the documents (X colly) are disputed, no arguments are canvassed as to the reasons for disputing them.
Be that as it may, the Applicant has not pleaded any physical or medical difficulty in travelling from Solapur to Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
Before this Court, the Respondent has expressed difficulty in travelling for medical reasons, supported by medical documents (X colly). The difficulty put forth by the Respondent is accompanied by an offer that the Respondent shall pay the to-and-fro travelling and boarding expenses of the Applicant at Belapur, Navi Mumbai, on the dates the Applicant is required to attend the Family Court at Belapur. But for this offer, the Respondent's stand could have been doubted.
Astoundingly, the Applicant flatly declined this offer. The Applicant insists on transferring the proceedings. This stance of the Applicant, qua the Respondents, will have to be tested on bonafides, read with the convenience of the parties.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das vs Srijit Das1, in paragraphs 1 to 7 has observed as follows:-
1.This transfer petition has been filed by the wife on the ground that the petitioner has a small child of six years. She has further claimed that she has no source of income and it is difficult for her to attend the court at Delhi. She has further claimed that she is not keeping good health.
2.In support of this petition, a large number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri [(2002) 10 SCC 136] , Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480] , Ram Gulam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad [(2002) 10 SCC 551] and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 726] . These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent.
3.Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.
4.This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.
5.Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out.
6.Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We, however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.
7.The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, money for a 2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. The respondent shall also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion in a 3-star hotel. The trial court shall ensure that the petitioner has been paid the travel expenses in advance and that the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.
Pendency of proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 85 of BNS 2023) instituted on the complaint filed by the Applicant being pending before the Court of JMFC Belapur, Navi Mumbai, is not disputed by Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant. The Applicant is not seeking transfer of these proceedings from Belapur, Navi Mumbai to Solapur.
Given the medical condition the Respondent claims to have, the Applicant ought to have shown some adjustment, especially since the Application does not refer to any medical condition of the Applicant in support of the transfer, nor has Ms. Ruchi Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, made any submission to that effect.
The inconvenience, if any, expressed by the Applicant could have been reduced, if not completely addressed, had the Applicant accepted the Respondent’s offer. Conversely, the same may not be the case for the Respondent. The Respondent has duly addressed the financial difficulty ground.
In view of the above, the intent behind the Applicant's request in this Application appears not to be bona fide.
In light of the above and the Applicant's refusal to accept the offer made by the Respondent, I am left with no other option but to decline the Applicant's request in this Application.
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2026 is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Footnotes
- 1.(2006) 9 SCC 197