Generally Wife's Convenience Must Be Looked At While Considering Transfer Petition Under Section 24 CPC: Supreme Court

Read Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JK Maheshwari observed.

Asper the case detail, the husband filed a petition for marriage annulment before the Family Court, Vellore. Before the Family Court at Chennai, the wife filed two petitions, one seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the second, a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Before the Madras High court, she filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the transfer of the petition filed by her husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court at Chennai. She submitted
that her parents are old and that she is aged 21 years and not in a position to travel to Vellore throughout the court proceedings without having any support. Aggrieved with the dismissal of the Transfer Petition, she approached the Apex Court.

The court noted that the appellant is 21 years old and does not have any source of income of her own as she is not employed and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In order to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by her husband at Vellore, she has to travel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not in a position to accompany her on account of their old age, the bench noticed.

"The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or another proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, and their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering a transfer.", the bench observed.

The court also observed that is also just and proper to club all three cases together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflict of decisions.

"Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise a common questions of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in a trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."