Rashmi Rohan Shetty vs Rohan Raghunath Shetty
- SCC(2021) 15 SCC 257
- Neutral2021 INSC 667
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A transfer petition seeking transfer of proceedings between courts of competent jurisdiction may be allowed where the petitioner resides at a considerable distance from the court in which the proceedings are pending, the respondent raises no objection to the transfer, and the transfer would enable the petitioner to effectively defend the petition.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RASHMI ROHAN SHETTY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ROHAN RAGHUNATH SHETTY Respondent(s)
ORDER
This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent- husband in the Family Court at Thane, Maharashtra, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada District, Karnataka.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
It is submitted that the petitioner is presently residing at Mangalore, Karnataka and hence the aforesaid matter may be transferred to the competent court of jurisdiction at Mangalore.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no objection is raised by the respondent for the said transfer as such.
In the circumstances, having regard to the difficulty pleaded by the Petitioner and the distance between Thane, Maharashtra and Mangalore at Karnataka being considerable and in order to enable the petitioner to effectively defend the aforesaid petition, the aforesaid petition namely M.P. No. A123/2019 titled as “Mr. Rohan Raghunath Shetty Vs. Mrs. Rashmi Rohan Shetty” is directed to be
NEETU KHAJURIA
transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction that is the competent Family Court, at Mangalore, Karnataka.
2 It is needless to observe that both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Mangalore for expeditious disposal of the petition.
The Petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………………………J
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi Date: 25.10.2021.
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