Case Note & Summary
The judgment of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) concerned a Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by the wife seeking transfer of a Hindu Marriage Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights from the Family Court, Aurangabad to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The parties were married on 9 May 1999, and two children were born from the wedlock, aged 6 and 11 years at the time of the application. The wife resided in Raver, District Jalgaon, with the children and her aged parents. The husband, serving at Gangapur, had filed the petition in Aurangabad on 2 September 2011. The wife had previously filed a complaint under Sections 2, 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was pending in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raver, and had obtained an order of maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month in Misc. Application No. 162 of 2008. The wife contended that she lacked independent financial resources beyond the maintenance, that the distance between Raver and Aurangabad imposed a severe financial and logistical burden, and that her responsibilities towards the children and parents made travel difficult. The husband opposed the transfer, arguing that the wife had attended four out of eight hearing dates in Aurangabad without the children, that her parents were healthy and mobile, that the maintenance amount was sufficient for travel, and that the distance from Raver to Jalgaon (about 100 km) would also be inconvenient for him. The court considered the sole legal question: whether, in the interest of justice and convenience, the proceedings should be transferred. It noted that except for the maintenance, the wife had no financial source, she had two minor children studying at Raver, and she had to care for her parents with no real brother to assist. Relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41, which held that in proceedings filed by the husband, the wife's convenience must be looked into, the court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue in Aurangabad would cause great inconvenience to the wife. Accordingly, the application was allowed, and the Hindu Marriage Petition No. A 290 of 2011 was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The concerned court was directed to complete the transfer within two weeks and to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months from the first date of hearing. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings - Convenience of Wife - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - The wife sought transfer of the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights from Family Court, Aurangabad to the court at Jalgaon, citing lack of financial resources, two minor children aged 6 and 11, and responsibility for aged parents. The husband opposed, contending that the wife had attended some hearings, parents were healthy, and maintenance of Rs. 5,000 was sufficient. Held that the wife's convenience should be given precedence in matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband, relying on Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41, and the transfer was allowed to prevent inconvenience to the wife. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Hindu Marriage Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad should be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on grounds of wife's convenience and financial hardship.
Final Decision
The application was allowed. The Hindu Marriage Petition No. A 290 of 2011 pending before the Family Court, Aurangabad was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The concerned court was directed to take steps to transfer within two weeks and to dispose of the proceedings, preferably within six months from the first date of hearing. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- In matrimonial proceedings filed by the husband
- the convenience of the wife should be looked into
- Transfer of proceedings may be ordered under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 to prevent inconvenience and hardship to the wife
- wife's lack of financial resources and caregiving responsibilities are relevant considerations for transfer
