Priyanka Raj Shah and another vs Rohit Kumar

It is not in dispute that marriage solemnized on 10.12.2012 inter se petitioner and respondent has not worked out and since the year, 2014, parties are residing separately. Allegedly, petitioner is running her own business at Solan. She has instituted proceedings for maintenance in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Solan and the respondent-husband has also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court having competent jurisdiction at Rampur, District Shimla. It is not that petitioner is an illiterate rustic villager. She is an educated lady and has been otherwise freely travelling in connection with her business.

An endeavour of having the matter amicably resolved did not bear any fruitful result. Parties were called upon to the Court; they were sensitized; and with their consent matter referred to mediation. They were made aware of the benefits of such process, but however learned mediator despite his best efforts could not persuade the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement, which in fact, was not only for their interest but also for the interest of their child.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Transfer Petition (CIVIL) No.1912 of 2014, titled as Krishna Veni Nagam vs. Harish nagam, more specifically in Paras 13 and 14 has held as under:-

"13. We have considered the above suggestions. In this respect, we may also refer to the doctrine of forum non conveniens which can be applied in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest of justice. Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient and there is any other forum which is considered to be more convenient for the interest of all the parties at the ends of justice. In Modi Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4 SCC 341, this Court observed:

"19. In Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansulex Ltd. (1986) 3 All ER 843) case the House of Lords laid down the following principle:

"The fundamental principle applicable to both the stay of English proceedings on the ground that some other forum was the appropriate forum and also the grant of leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was that the court would choose that forum in which the case could be tried more suitably for the interest of all the parties and for the ends of justice."

The criteria to determine which was a more appropriate forum, for the purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the court would look for that forum with which the action had the most real and substantial connection in terms of convenience or expense, availability of witnesses, the law governing the relevant transaction and the places where the parties resided or carried on business. If the court concluded that there was no other available forum which was more appropriate than the English court, it would normally refuse a stay. If, however, the court concluded that there was another forum which was prima facie more appropriate, the court would normally grant a stay unless there were circumstances militating against a stay. It was noted that as the dispute concerning the contract in which the proper law was English law, it meant that England was the appropriate forum in which the case could be more suitably tried."

Though these observations have been made in the context of granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the plaintiff is the dominus litis but if more than one court has jurisdiction, court can determine which is the convenient forum and lay down conditions in the interest of justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be availed (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 para 30).

One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country video conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilized and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court''s jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of video conference, proceedings may be conducted on video conferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by video conferencing (State of Maharashtra etc. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai etc. (2003) 4 SCC 601."

In view of above, this Court does not find any special reason to transfer the petition so filed by the husband from the Courts of competent jurisdiction at Rampur to the Court having competent jurisdiction at Solan. Rampur is accessible by road and the Courts at both the places have video conferencing facility.

As such, present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue of maintenance, as was sought to be urged here, to be decided by the Courts dealing with the matters. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.