Delhi High Court
Ridhima Juneja vs Deven Juneja on 13 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ T.R.P.(C) No. 88/2013
% 13th January, 2014
RIDHIMA JUNEJA ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Naina Dubey and Mr. Narendra
Goyal, Advocates.
VERSUS
DEVEN JUNEJA ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 24 CPC by the wife to transfer the petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce in the Rohini District Courts to Saket District Courts where the petition filed by the petitioner-wife under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending disposal.
2. On 19.11.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:-
"The learned counsel for appellant seeks time to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner would be willing to have two matters, which are stated to be pending in Saket Courts, transferred to Rohini Court where the divorce petition is pending. This suggestion T.P.88/2013 Page 1 of 5 has been made by the court on account of the fact that the petitioner has shown his residential address as that of Ashok Vihar which is nearer to Rohini courts in comparison to Saket courts.
List on 13.01.2014."
3. Today, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that she has taken instructions in terms of the above order dated 19.11.2013 and that petitioner is not ready to get her petition transferred from the Saket courts to the Rohini courts. It is claimed that the Saket courts are more convenient to the petitioner and not the District Courts Rohini. It is claimed that petitioner resides not only at the address of Ashok Vihar as given in the litigations, but also at Lajpat Nagar where her parents are staying and that the son of the petitioner is studying in Modern School which is situated in Central Delhi and therefore Saket courts are convenient. In fact, a request is orally made that the courts at Patiala House are most ideal courts and that both the petitions of the petitioner and the respondent should be transferred to Patiala House courts.
4. In support of the arguments which are urged on behalf of the petitioner, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Shakuntala Modi Vs. Om Prakash Bharuka Air 1991 SC 1104 and of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Meera Dhingra Vs. Deepak Kapoor & Ors. 2009 (109) DRJ 557.
T.P.88/2013 Page 2 of 5
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that it is the convenience of the wife which has to be seen and which is regularly seen by the courts and since as per the wife the courts at Saket are most convenient, therefore, the divorce petition of the husband be transferred to the courts at Saket where the petition filed by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act is pending.
6. I have already reproduced the order dated 19.11.2013 above and which shows that the courts at Rohini are in fact more closer to the residence of the petitioner which is situated at Ashok Vihar and not the courts at Saket. I cannot agree with the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only the convenience of the wife has to be seen because no doubt that law does give importance to the convenience of the wife for transferring of a petition, however, convenience has to be real and actual convenience based on actual facts and not a mental thing without foundational facts. Convenience has to be co-related to actual and real facts and the facts in this case show that the courts at Saket are at a much more distance from the residence of the petitioner at Ashok Vihar than the courts at Rohini. There is therefore no valid factual basis for the petitioner of her argument of convenience and especially because the alleged factum of the petitioner also living at her parent‟s address which is now argued orally T.P.88/2013 Page 3 of 5 before me is not found to be averred in the petition in this Court. It is further to be noted that it is not as if that the petitioner has to go for many times in a month to the courts at Rohini, and the dates in the Rohini courts, and for that matter even in the Saket Courts, would possibly be not more than once in one or two months. In such circumstances, simply because petitioner finds it „convenient‟, cases cannot be transferred either to the Saket courts or to the Patiala House courts as is prayed for by the petitioner.
7. Also, courts cannot transfer cases simply on the basis of convenience at the Patiala House Courts which has no territorial jurisdiction qua any of the pending cases, because, if such a prayer is accepted then simply on the convenience of the parties cases would be transferred from one District Court to another District Court which has no jurisdiction though there is no commonality of the issues or the parties in the cases and that that courts are chosen in convenience and not the legal requirement of territorial jurisdiction.
8. In fact, in my opinion, the order dated 19.11.2013 which was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court was to test the bonafides of the petitioner with respect to actual facts and the negation of the petitioner to the offer for transfer of all the cases to Rohini courts shows that bonafides T.P.88/2013 Page 4 of 5 are lacking on behalf of the petitioner to maintain this petition under Section 24 CPC.
9. The judgments which have been cited on behalf of the petitioner do not apply inasmuch as whereas the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Meera Dhingra (supra) deals with the issue of cases being required to be heard together where issues are identical so that there is no conflicting judgments of different courts on the same issues, and, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Shakuntala Modi (supra) is distinguishable on facts because in that case it was not that the wife was praying for transfer of the cases to a court which was more distant from a residence than the place where the case which is sought to be transferred was pending.
10. In the facts of the present case I do not think any case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, and which exercise of jurisdiction as per facts of cases, is discretionary.
11. The petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 13, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
T.P.88/2013 Page 5 of 5