LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of a matrimonial dispute case. CASE TYPE: Family Law. Case Name: Sharmila Bagchi @ Gangopadhayay vs. Sourav Gangopadhayay. [Judgment Date]: January 18, 2022
Date of the Judgment: January 18, 2022. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. Can a wife, facing a divorce petition in a distant court, have the case transferred to her current place of residence? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to move her divorce case closer to home. The court, in this case, considered the convenience of the wife and allowed the transfer. 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 by profession. There are no children from the marriage. The respondent-husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal. The petitioner-wife, currently residing with her parents in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, filed a transfer petition seeking to move the divorce case to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. She also filed a maintenance petition in Shamli.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 17, 2017 | Marriage of Sharmila Bagchi and Sourav Gangopadhayay. |
| 2018 | Sourav Gangopadhayay filed a divorce petition in Family Court, Burdwan, West Bengal. |
| January 28, 2020 | Supreme Court issued notice to respondent-husband and stayed divorce proceedings. |
| January 18, 2022 | Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the divorce case to Family Court, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. |
Course of Proceedings
The divorce case was initially filed by the respondent-husband in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal. The petitioner-wife then filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking to move the case to Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, where she is currently residing. The Supreme Court issued a notice to the respondent-husband on January 28, 2020, and stayed the proceedings in the divorce case. Despite receiving the notice, the respondent-husband did not appear or file a counter-affidavit.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce. The petitioner sought a transfer of the case based on the inconvenience of travelling to West Bengal from Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court considered the wife’s plea for transfer, taking into account her residence and the fact that she had also filed a maintenance petition in Shamli.
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states: “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 sub-normality 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.”
Arguments
The petitioner-wife argued that she is currently residing with her parents in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and has also filed a maintenance petition there. She contended that it would be extremely inconvenient for her to travel to Burdwan, West Bengal, to attend the divorce proceedings. The respondent-husband did not appear before the Supreme Court, nor did he file a counter-affidavit. Therefore, the Court considered only the petitioner’s arguments.
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner-Wife | Inconvenience of location |
|
| Respondent-Husband | No Submission |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument was based on the practical difficulties faced by a woman in attending court proceedings far away from her current residence, highlighting the need for judicial consideration of convenience in matrimonial disputes.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the divorce case filed by the respondent-husband in the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal, should be transferred to the Family Court at Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, given the petitioner-wife’s current residence and the maintenance petition filed there.
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, Uttar Pradesh? | Yes, the case was ordered to be transferred. | The Court considered the petitioner-wife’s residence in Shamli and the maintenance petition filed there, along with the respondent’s lack of appearance. |
Authorities
No authorities (cases or legal provisions) were explicitly cited by the Supreme Court in this order. The decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the lack of response from the respondent-husband.
| Authority | How it was used | Court |
|---|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, ordering the divorce case to be moved from the Family Court at Burdwan, West Bengal, to the Family Court at Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the respondent-husband did not appear despite receiving notice and that the petitioner-wife’s residence and maintenance petition in Shamli made the transfer appropriate. The Court also allowed the respondent-husband a period of three months to seek modification or recall of the order if he had not been served with the notice.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner-Wife’s submission for transfer based on inconvenience | Accepted. The Court agreed that the case should be transferred to Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. |
| Respondent-Husband’s lack of response | Considered as an indication that he was not keen to contest the transfer petition. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court? There were no authorities cited in this judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the petitioner-wife’s current residence in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, and the fact that she had also filed a maintenance petition there. The lack of response from the respondent-husband also played a role in the Court’s decision. The Court aimed to ensure that the petitioner-wife would not face undue hardship in attending the divorce proceedings.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Convenience | 60% |
| Respondent’s Non-Appearance | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
“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.”
“It appears that the respondent-husband is not keen to contest the instant transfer petition.”
“The respondent-husband shall be entitled to seek modification/recall of this order within a period of three months if it is found that he has not been served with AD notice as reported by the Office.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Matrimonial cases can be transferred to a location convenient for the wife, especially when she is residing there and has filed other related petitions.
- ✓ The non-appearance of the respondent can be a factor in deciding transfer petitions.
- ✓ The Supreme Court prioritizes the convenience of parties, particularly women, in matrimonial disputes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the transfer of MAT Suit No 454 of 2018 from the Family Court in Burdwan, West Bengal, to the Family Court in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. The records were ordered to be transferred forthwith. The respondent-husband was given three months to seek modification or recall of the order if he had not been properly served with the notice.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife, especially when she is residing at a particular location and has filed related petitions there, is a significant factor in deciding transfer petitions. This decision reinforces the principle that courts should aim to minimize hardship for parties, especially women, in family law matters. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it is an application of existing principles to a specific set of facts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the divorce case from Burdwan to Shamli underscores the importance of considering the convenience of parties, particularly the wife, in matrimonial disputes. The Court’s order reflects a practical approach to ensuring that women are not unduly burdened by having to travel long distances to attend court proceedings, especially when they have already established residence and initiated other legal actions in a different location. The lack of response from the respondent-husband further solidified the Court’s decision to prioritize the petitioner’s convenience.