Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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

  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:06 AM
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:05 AM
138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court