Supreme CourtFull Bench(1998) 05 SC CK 0012

Shehnaz Mudbhatkal vs Arvind Ramakrishna and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 15 May 1998 · Citation: AIR 1999 SC 1524 : (1998) AIRSCW 3916 : (1998) 6 JT 638 : (1998) 5 SCC 596

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. M. Punchhi, C.J · K. T. Thomas, J · D. P. Wadhwa, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
SLP (C) No. 5968 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 220 words

This is a transfer application. The petitioner herein is the wife and the first respondent, the husband. The cause between the parties initially was before the 4th Family Court, Bandra, but at a point of time was transferred to the 7th Family Court. Proceedings before the 7th Family Court remained stagnant because there was no Presiding Judge. The position continues to be the same. The Principal Family Court then transferred the case to the 4th Family Court. The petitioner has certain grievances against the functioning of the 4th Family Court when the matter was before it. Certain unfounded allegations have been made against the Presiding Judge of that Court. The apprehensions of the petitioner that she will not get justice there, are without any basis. All the same, since the family matters are sensitive in character and the Judges of the Family Courts have to play a greater participatory role, that objective can only be achieved if a rapport is established by the Judges of such court with the parties concerned. In these circumstances, we leave it to the Judge concerned whether he would prefer to keep hearing this matter or recommend a transfer to another Family Court within the same jurisdiction. We leave that option to the learned Judge. Having remarked thus, we dispose of this special leave petition.