MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Transfer Petition: High Court Prioritizes Women’s Convenience in Matrimonial Disputes

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of socio-economic factors in matrimonial disputes, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, under the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, has set a precedent prioritizing the convenience of women in case transfers. The decision dated November 15, 2023, revolved around a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a matrimonial dispute.

In the case of Reena Kumari vs. Ashok, the petitioner-wife sought the transfer of a petition, initially filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The transfer was requested from the Court of the Learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, to a competent jurisdiction at Jind, citing economic hardship and lack of convenient transportation.

Justice Vashisth, in his ruling, emphasized, “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 behavioral pattern.” This statement highlights the Court’s approach towards balancing judicial discretion with the realities of socio-economic disparities.

The judgement also referenced several key Supreme Court rulings, including N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR 2022 SC 4318, and Rajani Kishor Pradeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, which underscore the importance of considering the wife’s convenience in transfer petitions.

In this landmark decision, the Court laid down comprehensive factors to be considered in such cases, including the economic conditions of both parties, social standing, custody of children, their education, and the physical well-being of both spouses. These factors collectively influenced the decision to transfer the case to a more accessible location for the petitioner-wife.

The ruling has been widely lauded as a step forward in recognizing the challenges faced by women in legal proceedings, particularly in matrimonial disputes. It sets a benchmark for future cases where the socio-economic conditions of the parties, especially the women, are a critical consideration for the judiciary.

The case was adeptly represented by Mr. Ashok K. Sharma (Bhana), Advocate for the applicant/petitioner, who successfully argued the need for considering the petitioner-wife’s hardships in the legal process.

Date of Decision: 15.11.2023

Reena Kumari VS Ashok             

 

Latest Legal News