May 31, 2018
Case name: Monika Sharma v. Manish Kumar
In a recent case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh transferred divorce petition pending adjudication to place favourable to the Petitioner i.e. wife in view of the Apex Court’s holding that in matrimonial proceedings, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked into.
In the case, the Petitioner wife prayed that the proceedings, against her under Section 13 (1) (1-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which are pending adjudication at District Una in Himachal Pradesh be transferred to District Kangra, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner serving as Assistant Professor (Economics) at Government College at Kangar, and that she has a minor school going daughter, who is residing with her.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh made an order in favour of the wife and referred to Supreme Court’s order in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr., wherein it was held that in matrimonial proceedings, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked into.
The High Court also remarked that though this Court is not oblivious of the fact that it is not as if under all circumstances such an application has always to be allowed but then taking into consideration the peculiar facts of this case i.e. the difficulty expressed by wife in defending the case, it will be in the interest of justice in case the proceedings in issue are ordered to be transferred for the purpose of further adjudication to the Court at Kangra.
The entire case can be accessed here.
Here it would be relevant to mention that in a recent case, the Supreme Court (Harita Sunil Parab v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) That convenience of the parties does not mean the convenience of the petitioner alone who approaches the court on misconceived notions of apprehension.
Other cases on similar issue:
Mrudul M. Damle & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi
Parminder Kaur vs. State of U.P.
In order to combat the issue of transfer petition in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court in a recent case namely Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam had emphasized on the availability of video conferencing facility in matrimonial cases.
Read more here.
 (2001) 10 SCC 41