Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Case for Wife’s Convenience: N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 643

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari

Can a wife, who is financially dependent and lacks family support, have her matrimonial case transferred to her place of residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a wife sought the transfer of her husband’s case to her location, emphasizing her difficulties in traveling and lack of support. The Court considered the economic and social circumstances of the parties involved. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice J.K. Maheshwari concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, N.C.V. Aishwarya, and the respondent, A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, were married on March 5, 2020, in Vellore. The respondent claimed that the appellant started quarreling and refused to consummate the marriage. Consequently, the respondent filed F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 in the Family Court, Vellore, seeking annulment of the marriage. The appellant, a resident of Chennai, also initiated two cases: H.M.O.P. No. 1741 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights and M.C. Sr. No. 672 of 2021 for maintenance, both in the Family Court at Chennai. The appellant contended that the respondent withdrew from her society without reasonable excuse and was bound to live with her.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking the transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 from the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court, Chennai. The appellant argued that she was a 21-year-old, unemployed woman dependent on her elderly parents, making it difficult for her to travel to Vellore for court proceedings. The respondent opposed the transfer. The High Court dismissed the transfer petition, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases. The appellant also invoked Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states:

“9. Restitution of conjugal rights.—When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, a 21-year-old woman, is a resident of Chennai and is unemployed, making her financially dependent on her parents.
• Her parents are elderly and unable to accompany her to Vellore for court proceedings.
• Traveling alone to Vellore for each hearing would be difficult and cause undue hardship.
• She has filed two cases in Chennai: H.M.O.P. No. 1741 of 2021 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and M.C. Sr. No. 672 of 2021 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
• To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions, all three cases should be heard together.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent is a resident of Vellore and has filed the case for annulment of marriage in the Family Court at Vellore.
• The respondent opposed the transfer petition, without providing specific reasons against the transfer in the judgment.

The core of the appellant’s argument was based on her economic and social vulnerability, highlighting the practical difficulties she would face in attending court proceedings in Vellore. The respondent’s argument was simply against the transfer, without elaborating on the reasons.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the transfer petition filed by the appellant.
2. Whether the case filed by the respondent in Family Court, Vellore, should be transferred to Family Court, Chennai, where the appellant has filed two other cases.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure: This section deals with the general power of transfer and withdrawal of suits, appeals, or other proceedings.
• Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section provides for restitution of conjugal rights.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to justify the transfer, highlighting that the ends of justice should demand the transfer.

✓ The Court noted the appellant’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, as a related matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The economic and social vulnerability of the appellant, a young, unemployed woman dependent on her elderly parents.
• The practical difficulties she would face in traveling alone from Chennai to Vellore for court proceedings.
• The need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions by clubbing all three cases together.
• The principle that in matrimonial matters, the wife’s convenience should be given preference, especially when she is financially dependent.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the appellant’s vulnerability and the practical difficulties she would face. While the legal framework under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided the basis for the transfer, the Court’s decision was driven by considerations of equity and convenience. The Court emphasized the importance of considering the socio-economic realities of the parties involved, especially in matrimonial matters.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be given preference, especially when she is economically dependent and lacks social support. The court also considered that the appellant had filed two cases in Chennai, and it would be more efficient to club all the cases together to avoid conflicting decisions.

The Supreme Court stated, “The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.” The court further added, “Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” The Court also noted, “Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

Key Takeaways

• In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife, especially when she is financially dependent, is a key factor in deciding transfer petitions.
• Courts should consider the socio-economic realities of the parties involved, particularly the vulnerability of women.
• When multiple cases between the same parties raise common questions of fact and law, they should be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the ends of justice should be the primary consideration in transfer cases under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• Transfer of F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 from the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court, Chennai.
• Clubbing of F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020, H.M.O.P. No. 1741 of 2021, and M.C. Sr. No. 672 of 2021, so that a common order may be passed by the Family Court at Chennai.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife, especially when she is financially dependent and lacks social support, should be given significant weight when considering the transfer of cases. This decision reinforces the principle that the courts should be sensitive to the socio-economic realities of the parties involved and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done without causing undue hardship. This decision does not overrule any previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing principles of equity and convenience in the context of matrimonial disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court directed the transfer of the case filed by the husband from Vellore to Chennai, and also directed the clubbing of all three cases to be heard together in the Family Court at Chennai. The decision emphasizes the importance of considering the wife’s convenience and socio-economic circumstances in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that justice is accessible and equitable.