Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Grants Transfer of Matrimonial Case to Nagpur, Allows Video Conferencing for Respondent"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN, allowed the transfer of a significant family court case under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The case titled "SHWETA D SHAMKUWAR v. VINAY BORKAR" saw the petitioner, Shweta D Shamkuwar, seeking the relocation of her case from the Court of Principal Judge, (Family Court), Central District THC, Delhi, to the District Family Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court's observation noted, "The petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the aforesaid petition," reflecting the court's decision to grant the transfer in the interest of justice. This move underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and just legal process, acknowledging the circumstances and preferences of the parties involved.

Furthermore, the judgment also emphasized the importance of accommodating the respondent, Vinay Borkar, by reserving the liberty for him to appear through a video conferencing facility. The court declared that it would provide the necessary video conferencing facility if requested by the respondent.

In its final order, the Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, directing the transfer of HMA case number 346/2023 to the District Family Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra. The court also noted that pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

This verdict highlights the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and accessible legal process, taking into account the needs and circumstances of the parties involved. The provision for video conferencing reflects the court's adaptability in the modern age, making justice more accessible to all, even in cases with geographical disparities.

This judgment sets a precedent for the equitable and efficient handling of cases involving geographical challenges, ensuring that the pursuit of justice remains unhindered by logistical concerns.

Date of Decision: SEPTEMBER 27, 2023

SHWETA D SHAMKUWAR  vs VINAY BORKAR

Latest Legal News