Are you aware of this? When a couple gets married, they share responsibility half-and-half. However, when there is some matrimonial dispute, things fall upon the husband in the most unexpected ways. There are criminal and matrimonial cases running, usually at the place where the wife is residing – her maternal home. If the husband chooses to start divorce proceedings, before or after lodging such cases, the Courts are most likely to transfer that case to another State/City as per the convenience of wife. However, there are some instances of transfer petition decided in favour of husband, which could come handy while fighting a case for men. Here, we have compiled such cases to help the counsels representing husband in matrimonial case.
No Transfer of Petition for Wife Staying Overseas
In case of Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes (2021), the petitioner wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings to Mumbai. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the petitioner wife was a permanent resident of Canada and was in Canada throughout the mediation proceedings and attended meetings through video conferencing. Thus, the Supreme Court did not find any merit in the wife’s request for transfer of matrimonial case and dismissed the same. The transfer petition was decided in favour of husband.
Leniency being Misused by Women
In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006), the Supreme Court took note of the misuse of leniency shown by Courts towards the wife in matrimonial disputes seeking transfer of cases. It pointed towards the large number of similar petitions filed by wives. Therefore, the Court batted for deciding such petitions on merit and accordingly dismissed the transfer petition by the wife.
No Transfer of Criminal Case
The Supreme Court in Jyoti Mishra v. Dhananjaya Mishra (2010) refused to transfer a criminal case from one State to another solely on the ground of being more convenient for the complainant wife. The facts reveal that the wife was still living with her matrimonial house when she complained of cruelty and an FIR was lodged for crime under Section 498A of IPC. Now that she had moved to her parents’ house, she sought transfer of case there only. While a case was filed against the in-laws as well, only the husband was made party in the transfer petition. The Court reasoned the criminal nature of the trial in this transfer petition decided in favour of husband.
Case Transfer to a Third Place
In Pravesh Kumari v. Neer Bawra, the husband and wife both were working in transferable jobs. Considering the situation, the Court asked them to suggest a common place where both of them could join the Court proceedings in the said Family Suit. Henec, Delhi was agreed upon by both and the Supreme Court transferred the matter from Ahmedabad to Patiala House Court in Delhi. While this transfer petition was not decided in favour of husband, it ended up being a neutral scenario.
“Just because Petitioner is lady does not mean she cannot travel”
In Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma (2004), the Court decided a specific transfer petition in favour of husband. The Supreme Court viewed that “no substantial ground for transfer has been made out. If the Petitioner wishes that all cases be tried at one place, she may apply for the same and we will transfer the cases pending in Delhi to Muzaffar Nagar. Merely because the Petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar.”
Video Conferencing Facility
The Supreme Court in the recent matter of Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) ordered the Courts of jurisdiction to consider the specific facts and allow video conferencing facility, legal aid service, travel cost deposit and an email/phone number at which the litigant may communicate if he/she is out of station.
In General – Transfer Petition Decided in Favour of Husband
Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra (2004)
The wife in this case sought transfer of divorce case from Chandigarh to Bombay due to her dependent parents and the absence of income for travel expenses to attend Court proceedings. The husband on the other hand showed his willingness to bear her travel expenses for the case. The Supreme Court eventually dismissed the petition while ordering her husband to bear the travel expenses by a second class train.
Kanagalakshmi v. Venkatesan (2004)
The wife sought transfer of matrimonial case from Mumbai to Tamil Nadu on the ground of her difficulty to travel. The husband on the other hand stated that he was willing to bear the expenses of travel and stay for the wife as well as a person accompanying her. The Supreme Court was convinced and refused to transfer the case. Therefore, the transfer petition was decided in favour of husband.
Priyanka Batra v. Manish Batra (2005)
The wife herein sought transfer of case from Bangalore to Madhya Pradesh. She reasoned that she was unemployed and had no source of income, further adding that she never travelled alone, making it difficult for her to attend the case at Bangalore. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds made for transfer of the case since the husband was willing to bear the travel and stay expenses for the wife as well as her companion whenever she was required during Court proceedings.
Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh (2005)
The wife sought transfer of matrimonial suit from Punjab to West Bengal. She reasoned that she was a helpless woman completely dependent upon her father, while her financial capacity did not allow her to contest Court proceedings in Bhatinda, Punjab. The Court did not find it as a ground for transfer of matter and sought to direct the respondent husband to pay for her and companion’s expenses for to-and-fro travel along with stay.
Sarita Singh v. AP Baghel (2004)
The petitioner wife sought transfer of case from Lucknow to Delhi showing her inability to afford her commute to Lucknow. She had further stated that the suit was a counterblast by the husband. The Court noted that the husband was willing to take care of the travel and stay expenses of the wife on every occasion when the wife was required to come to Lucknow for the Court proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the same, resulting in a transfer petition decided in favour of husband.
Deviprakash Thakar vs Dr. Deviprakash Thakar (1996)
In this case, the respondent husband was a doctor whose frequent absence for attending Court proceedings may affect his patients, his parents were old and ailing, and the witnesses were principally from the city where the matter was currently ongoing. The wife had some close relations there and her city was well connected to the other. Considering the said reasons, the transfer petition was decided in husband’s favour by the Supreme Court.
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you think we missed out on some landmark case on transfer petition decided in favour of husband? Kindly help us add the same. Please share the details at lawgicalshots@gmail.com or connect us at LinkedIn. We would love to hear from you.
