Supreme Court Transfers Conjugal Rights Case: Akkireddy Nihaarika vs. Akkireddy Karteek Kumar (27 January 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a case be transferred from one state to another for the convenience of the parties involved? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The court considered the interests of justice and decided to transfer the case from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, also allowing the parties to appear through video conferencing. This decision was made by a bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case involves a transfer petition filed by Smt Akkireddy Nihaarika, seeking the transfer of a case for restitution of conjugal rights. The original case, titled “Akkireddy Karteek Kumar vs Smt Akkireddy Nihaarika,” was filed by the respondent, Akkireddy Karteek Kumar, in the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, Smt Akkireddy Nihaarika, requested the Supreme Court to transfer the case to a court in Lothagudem Bhadhradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana, citing her convenience.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment does not explicitly mention any specific legal provisions or statutes. However, the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases is derived from its inherent powers and is often exercised to ensure the convenience of the parties and to secure the ends of justice. The transfer of cases is usually governed by principles of natural justice and the need to avoid hardship to the parties involved.

Arguments

The arguments of the parties are not detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that:

• The petitioner, Smt Akkireddy Nihaarika, sought the transfer of the case to a court in Telangana for her convenience.
• The respondent, Akkireddy Karteek Kumar, likely opposed the transfer, though the specific reasons are not mentioned.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the petition for restitution of conjugal rights should be transferred from the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, to the court in Lothagudem Bhadhradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or legal provisions. The decision appears to be based on the court’s inherent powers to ensure justice and convenience for the parties involved.

Judgment

The Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in its reasoning.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure the convenience of the parties and to facilitate access to justice. The court’s order indicates a focus on procedural fairness and the practicalities of litigation, rather than a deep dive into the substantive legal issues of the case.

The court’s reasoning was based on the interest of justice, which included the convenience of the petitioner. The court also allowed the parties to appear through video conferencing, which further indicates a focus on facilitating access to justice.

The judgment does not discuss any alternative interpretations or legal principles. The decision is straightforward and focused on the practical aspects of the case.

The court’s decision was to transfer the case to the court in Telangana, allowing the parties to appear through video conferencing.

Reasons for the decision:

• To ensure the convenience of the petitioner.
• To facilitate access to justice.
• To allow the parties to appear through video conferencing.

The judgment does not have any majority or minority opinions. The decision was unanimous.

The court’s reasoning was based on the practical aspects of the case and the need to ensure fairness and convenience for the parties involved. The decision does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• Cases can be transferred from one state to another for the convenience of the parties.
• The Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases to ensure justice and fairness.
• Parties can be allowed to appear through video conferencing to facilitate access to justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The petition for restitution of conjugal rights be transferred from the Family Court at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, to the court in Lothagudem Bhadhradri, Kothagudem District, Telangana.
• The parties are at liberty to apply before the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge/competent court for appearing through the video conferencing mode.
• The records of the case shall be transferred to the transferee court forthwith.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can transfer cases from one state to another to ensure the convenience of the parties and to secure the ends of justice. This decision reinforces the court’s power to transfer cases and its commitment to ensuring fair and accessible justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by Smt Akkireddy Nihaarika, directing the transfer of the restitution of conjugal rights case from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana. The court also allowed the parties to appear through video conferencing, emphasizing the importance of convenience and access to justice in legal proceedings.