LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of a matrimonial dispute case. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial. Case Name: Sharmila Bagchi @ Gangopadhayay vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay. [Judgment Date]: January 18, 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 61
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Can a wife, who has moved to her parental home, have her divorce case transferred to a court closer to her? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a couple, both doctors by profession. The court considered the wife’s plea to transfer her divorce case from West Bengal to Uttar Pradesh, where she was currently residing. The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant.
Case Background
The petitioner, Sharmila Bagchi, and the respondent, Sourav Gangopadhayay, were married on January 17, 2017. Both are doctors. There are no children from their marriage. The wife filed a transfer petition seeking to move the divorce case filed by the husband from the Family Court in Burdwan, West Bengal, to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. The wife stated that she was residing with her parents in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and had also filed a maintenance petition there. The husband did not appear before the court despite notice.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 17, 2017 | Marriage between Sharmila Bagchi and Sourav Gangopadhayay. |
| 2018 | Husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal. |
| January 28, 2020 | Supreme Court issued notice to the husband and stayed the divorce proceedings. |
| January 18, 2022 | Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the divorce case to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. |
Course of Proceedings
The wife filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of the divorce case filed by the husband in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal, to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the husband on January 28, 2020, and stayed the proceedings in the divorce case. The husband received the notice, but did not appear or file a counter-affidavit. The court noted that the husband did not seem keen to contest the transfer petition.
Legal Framework
The case involves Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce. The court also considered the general principles of transfer of cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes, where the convenience of the wife is often a significant factor. The relevant part of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is as follows:
“13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—
(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation.—In this clause,—
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind; and
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including subnormality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or
(iv) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or
(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.
(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground—
(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.
(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground,—
(i) in the case of any marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act, that the husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage of the petitioner:
Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) that the husband has, since the solemnisation of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality; or
(iii) that in a suit under Section 9 of this Act or in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or under the corresponding section of any law in force in any part of India, a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards; or
(iv) that her marriage was solemnised before she attained the age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.
Explanation.—This clause shall be omitted by the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978).
Arguments
The petitioner-wife argued that she was currently residing with her parents in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and had also filed a maintenance petition there. She contended that it would be more convenient for her if the divorce case was transferred to the Family Court in Shamli. The respondent-husband did not appear before the court and did not file any counter-affidavit. Therefore, there were no counter-arguments presented.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Wife’s plea for transfer |
|
| Husband’s position |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the divorce case pending in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal, should be transferred to the Family Court at Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, given the wife’s current residence and the husband’s lack of objection.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the divorce case should be transferred to Shamli, U.P.? | Yes, the case was transferred. | The wife was residing in Shamli, U.P., and the husband did not object. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in its order. The decision was based on the facts of the case and the general principles of transfer of cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes, where the convenience of the wife is often a significant factor.
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Mentioned as the basis for the divorce petition. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Wife’s plea for transfer to Shamli, U.P. | Accepted. The Court found it appropriate to transfer the case, considering the wife’s residence and the husband’s lack of objection. |
| Husband’s lack of appearance and objection | The Court noted the husband’s lack of appearance as an implied lack of objection to the transfer. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the wife’s convenience and the husband’s lack of objection. The fact that the wife was residing with her parents in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and had also filed a maintenance petition there, weighed heavily in the court’s decision. The court also noted that the husband had not appeared despite receiving notice, indicating that he did not object to the transfer. The court also considered that the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes is a significant factor.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Wife’s Convenience | 60% |
| Husband’s Non-Objection | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court’s reasoning was straightforward. The court noted that the wife was residing in Shamli, U.P., and had also filed a maintenance petition there. The husband, despite receiving notice, did not appear before the court or file any counter-affidavit. The court thus inferred that the husband had no objection to the transfer. The court also considered the general principles of transfer of cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes, where the convenience of the wife is a significant factor. The court stated, “Taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioner-wife that she is residing with her parents in Shamli, U.P., where she has also filed maintenance petition, I deem it appropriate to allow the present transfer petition.” The court also noted that “It appears that the respondent-husband is not keen to contest the instant transfer petition.” The Supreme Court concluded that, “MAT Suit No 454 of 2018 titled “ Sourav Gangopadhayay vs Sharmila Bagchi @ Gangopadhayay ” pending before the Principal Judge (ADJ – V), Family Court Burdwan, West Bengal is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Shamli (U.P .).”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a significant factor when considering transfer petitions.
- ✓ If a party does not appear before the court despite receiving notice, it may be interpreted as a lack of objection to the claims made by the other party.
- ✓ The Supreme Court can transfer cases from one state to another to ensure convenience and justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the records of the case be transferred to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, forthwith. The court also stated that the husband could seek modification or recall of the order within three months if he had not been properly served with the notice.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the principle that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a significant factor when considering transfer petitions. The decision also highlights the importance of responding to court notices. If a party does not respond, it could be interpreted as a lack of objection to the claims made by the other party. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the convenience of the wife, especially when she has moved to her parental home, is a primary consideration for the transfer of matrimonial cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the wife’s transfer petition, moving the divorce case from West Bengal to Uttar Pradesh. This decision was primarily based on the wife’s convenience and the husband’s lack of objection. The court emphasized the importance of considering the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes. The judgment also underscores the need for parties to respond to court notices, as a failure to do so could be interpreted as a lack of objection.