Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Mrs. Minaxi Rohit Biradar alias Minaxi Sadashiv Muchandi, filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Marriage Petition No. A-85 of 2024 filed by her husband, Mr. Rohit Bhimashankar Biradar, from the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The applicant contended that she was employed in Pune and resided there, while her parents lived in Sangli, making it inconvenient for her to attend proceedings in Mumbai. The respondent husband opposed the transfer, arguing that the application was filed merely to frustrate the pending marriage petition and that the applicant had previously lived and worked in Mumbai and could travel there. The respondent relied on two Supreme Court decisions: Anindita Das v. Srijit Das and Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes, which observed that courts normally show leniency towards wives in transfer petitions. The court, however, distinguished these cases, noting that the observation was obiter and not ratio decidendi, and that each case must be considered on its own merits. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, which laid down the cardinal principle that the ends of justice should demand the transfer, and in matrimonial matters, the wife's convenience must be looked at given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm. The court considered the applicant's employment confirmation letter, which stated that her appointment in Pune was confirmed with effect from 1st August 2024, and noted that the applicant resided alone in Pune with intermittent support from her parents. The court held that the convenience of the wife is of paramount consideration and allowed the transfer, directing the transfer of Marriage Petition No. A-85 of 2024 from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Proceedings - Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Convenience of Wife - The court considered an application by the wife seeking transfer of a marriage petition from Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to Pune. The wife was employed and resided in Pune, while her parents lived in Sangli. The husband opposed the transfer, arguing it was to frustrate the petition and that the wife could travel to Mumbai. The court held that the wife's convenience is of paramount consideration in matrimonial matters, and the power under Section 24 CPC must be exercised to meet the ends of justice. The court distinguished the obiter observations in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das and Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes, and relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, which emphasized that the wife's convenience must be looked at given the socio-economic paradigm. The court allowed the transfer, noting the wife's employment confirmation letter and the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 5-9) B) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Proceedings - Obiter Dicta vs Ratio Decidendi - The court clarified that the observation in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das and Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes regarding leniency towards wives in transfer petitions is obiter and not ratio decidendi, as the Supreme Court itself stated that each case must be considered on its own merits. Therefore, the observation cannot be ipso facto applied to the present case. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Marriage Petition filed by the husband at Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai should be transferred to Pune on the ground of the wife's convenience, considering her employment and residence in Pune.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and directed the transfer of Marriage Petition No. A-85 of 2024 from the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.
Law Points
- Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- transfer of matrimonial proceedings
- convenience of wife
- paramount consideration
- ends of justice
- obiter dicta vs ratio decidendi
- prima facie consideration
