Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anuradha Nilesh Singh vs Nilesh Dinesh Singh on 13 April, 2015
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 1256 OF 2014
ANURADHA NILESH SINGH ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
NILESH DINESH SINGH …..RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant petition for transfer of proceedings from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Vasai, District Thane, Maharashtra, to the Family Court at Delhi, is strongly contested by the learned counsel representing the respondent-husband. For this purpose, learned counsel invited our attention to the averments made in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by them. The same are reproduced hereunder:
“8. That the allegations contained in complaint case filed by the petitioner is also completely denied, which has been filed later on after receiving the notice of the divorce petition only as a counter blast. Similarly, the interim maintenance application filed by the petitioner in the divorce case is also bereft of any logic or proper reasoning. It is quite noticeable to see the quantum of demand made by the petitioner while she herself is earning Signature Not Verified handsomely. It is pertinent to point out Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Date: 2015.04.16 here that the petitioner has worked as High 16:38:12 IST Reason: Positions in the reputed companies like Coca Cola, Real Estate Giant Indo Asian Buildcon, Sife India, Mott Mcdowell etc. and the demand made by her shows her greed for money at any cost, be it her marriage 2 or fidelity. To get the sympathy of courts, she has presented a picture of a weak and tortured woman while the reality is quite opposite. It is quite noticeable to see that she has not said anything about her present working status, in fact she has conveniently suppressed this fact and has claimed that she is dependent upon her parents.
9. That the picture presented of herself that she is dependent upon her parents is really deplorable and so the grounds of transfer are not sustainable at all. In fact, the petitioner kept on working at Mumbai after her separation from the respondent and was residing with her aunt and so there is no case of transfer made out. Otherwise also, she does not require anybody's assistance to contest the case as she is quite capable of doing the same on her own, both financially and physically.
The ground taken by her that nobody among her close relatives are at Mumbai is also false as her maternal aunt, who has been referred to many number of times in the transfer petition itself, resides at Mira Road, Mumbai, where the respondent used to reside also after the separation. Under such circumstances the principle of dominius litis cannot be waived and the case must be allowed to continue at Vasai, only.” In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any justification for transferring the petition, as sought for.
The transfer petition is accordingly, dismissed.
...................J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR) ....................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI, APRIL 13,2015 3 ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1256/2014 ANURADHA NILESH SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS NILESH DINESH SINGH Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for stay and office report) Date : 13/04/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi,Adv.
Ms. Deepika T., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shekhar Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Janme Jay, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transfer petition is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (RENUKA SADANA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)