Divorce Petition Cannot Be Transferred When Both The Parties To Divorce Petition Are Residing At One Place- Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused to transfer the Divorce petition from Jaipur to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana as it was inconvenient to both parties.

The Bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that “when both the parties to the marriage/divorce petition are residing in Jaipur, it is not just and proper to transfer the case outside Rajasthan to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana. It will not be inconvenient to both of them as, while on duty they will have to go to attend the proceedings to such a long distance and return.”

Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner-wife had preferred the petition for the transfer of Divorce Petition pending before the Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

The Petitioner and the respondent-husband got married in 2014 and have a son, who was living with maternal grandparents in Kurukshetra. Both the petitioner and the respondent were in government service and were posted at Jaipur.

Two grounds based on which the transfer was sought were-

Firstly, that her father-in-law, who was Assistant Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan, was a very influential person in Jaipur and that at his behest, threats had been extended to the petitioner, in respect whereof, some complaints had been made by her to the authorities.

Secondly, the son of the petitioner is living and studying in Kurukshetra, Haryana, where he has initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondents.

The Apex Court noted that as the father-in-law of the petitioner had retired, it could not be said that he was so influential so as to have influenced the decision of the Family Court at Jaipur.

“The extension of some threats as alleged may be a danger to her personal security but that may not be sufficient or a good ground for the transfer of the petition.” observed the Apex Court.

The Apex Court further said that all the complaints were lodged subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition and even the initiation of the proceedings by the son at Kurukshetra in Haryana were subsequent to the filing of the divorce petition which appeared to be an afterthought.

Moreover, the petitioner had nowhere alleged that she was not going to stay in Jaipur any further or that she was likely to be transferred or going to live in Kurukshetra, Haryana

Therefore, the Apex Court refused to transfer the Divorce Petition.

Cause Title- Seema Kaushal v. Dheeraj Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment