Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nigam on 9 January, 2017
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.11 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). 1912/2014
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HARISH NIGAM Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for stay and office report)
Date : 09/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Vanita Mehta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Jabalpur. According to the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent, she will face acute hardship in contesting the proceedings at Jabalpur as she is living at Hyderabad. The marriage took place at Hyderabad. The petitioner has to look after her minor Signature Not Verified daughter who is living with her.
Digitally signed byMADHU BALA Date: 2017.01.10 17:28:19 IST Reason:
Undoubtedly under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petition of the present nature could be filed at 2 the place where the marriage is solemnized or the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides or where the parties to the marriage last resided together or where the wife is residing on the date of the presentation of the petition, in case she is the petitioner or in certain situations (as stipulated in clause iv) where the petitioner resides.
This Court is flooded with petitions of this nature and having regard to the convenience of the wife transfer is normally allowed. However, in the process the litigants have to travel to this Court and spend on litigation. Question is whether this can be avoided?
We are of the view that if orders are to be passed in every individual petition, this causes great hardship to the litigants who have to come to this Court. Moreover in this process, the matrimonial matters which are required to be dealt with expeditiously are delayed.
In these circumstances, we are prima facie of the view that we need to consider whether we could pass a general order to the effect that in case where husband files matrimonial proceedings at place where wife does not reside, the court concerned should entertain such petition only on the condition that the husband makes appropriate deposit to bear the expenses of the wife as may be determined by the Court. The Court may also pass orders from time to time for further deposit to ensure that the wife is not handicapped to defend the proceedings. In 3 other cases, the husband may take proceedings before the Court in whose jurisdiction the wife resides which may lessen inconvenience to the parties and avoid delay. Any other option to remedy the situation can also be considered.
However, before passing a final order, we consider it necessary to hear learned Attorney General who may depute some law officer to assist this Court.
List the matter on 31st January, 2017.
We also request Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Senior Advocate to assist this Court as amicus curiae. A set of papers may be furnished to the amicus.
(Madhu Bala) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master