Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rachna vs Ashok

Supreme Court22 November 2021B.V. Nagarathna

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A transfer of a matrimonial suit under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be granted where the defendant-respondent resides at a considerable distance from the court where the suit is pending, making it difficult or impractical for that party to attend and defend the proceedings, and the court is satisfied that such transfer is just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.420 OF 2020

RACHNA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ASHOK Respondent(s)

O R D E R

This petition has filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of HMA No.

67 of 2019 titled as “Ashok vs. Rachna Devi” under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of Learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ambah, M.P. to the Learned Family

Court, Saket, New Delhi.

Respondent was served on 10th June, 2020.

By Order dated 08th November, 2021, Office was directed to

ascertain whether the vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the

Respondent and if so, to put up in the next date of hearing. It is

noted that there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

In the said circumstances, I have heard learned counsel for

the petitioner and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

aforesaid case has been filed by the respondent in Ambah in the

Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,Ambah, Signature Not Verified

M.P., while the petitioner is residing in Delhi which is a distance Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2021.11.26 14:36:15 IST Reason: of about 800 Km. That it is not possible for the petitioner to

travel all the way to Ambah District of M.P., for the purpose of defending the aforesaid case. In such circumstances, the transfer

of aforesaid petition has been sought.

As already noted, despite respondent being served, there is no

representation.

Having regard to the facts pleaded in the petition and on

hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that it is just

and appropriate to transfer HMA NO. 67 of 2019 titled as “Ashok vs.

Rachna Devi” to the Learned Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

Ordered accordingly.

The petition is allowed with the aforesaid terms.

.................................J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 22, 2021

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free