LEGAL ISSUE: Transfer of matrimonial proceedings from one state to another. CASE TYPE: Family Law. Case Name: Shakun Srivastava vs. Prem Prakash Srivastava. [Judgment Date]: 04 October 2021
Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Can a wife seek the transfer of a matrimonial case filed by her husband to a court closer to her residence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of proceedings initiated by her husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. The court considered the petitioner’s plea and the respondent’s lack of opposition to grant the transfer. The judgment was delivered by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Case Background
The petitioner, Shakun Srivastava, filed a transfer petition seeking to move the case filed by her husband, Prem Prakash Srivastava. The husband had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, in the Family Court at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. The wife requested the case be transferred to the Family Court at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court had issued a notice on 14 November 2018, and stayed the proceedings in the Gorakhpur court. The respondent was served, as recorded on 06 January 2020. Despite this, the respondent did not appear before the court on 04 June 2020 and 18 June 2020. The respondent also did not appear on the date of the final hearing, despite being aware of the proceedings through a separate case initiated by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 (Date not specified) | Respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 in the Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. |
| 14 November 2018 | Supreme Court issued notice in the transfer petition and stayed proceedings in H.M.A. No.493 of 2018. |
| 06 January 2020 | Supreme Court recorded that the respondent was served. |
| 04 June 2020 | Supreme Court noted no appearance on behalf of the respondent. |
| 18 June 2020 | Supreme Court noted no appearance on behalf of the respondent. |
| 04 October 2021 | Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The case began with the husband filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, in the Family Court at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. The wife then filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking to move the case to the Family Court at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court issued a notice and stayed the proceedings in Gorakhpur. Despite being served, the husband did not appear in the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the husband was aware of the proceedings due to a separate case filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, which deals with restitution of conjugal rights. This section allows either spouse to petition the court for the resumption of cohabitation if the other spouse has withdrawn from the society without reasonable excuse. The transfer petition was filed under the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one court to another to ensure justice and convenience of the parties. The Court also considered the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents.
The relevant legal provisions are:
- Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956: “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.”
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents.
Arguments
The petitioner-wife argued that the case should be transferred from Gorakhpur to Bhopal for her convenience. She contended that it would be difficult for her to travel to Gorakhpur to attend the court proceedings, and that it would be more convenient for her to attend the court in Bhopal. The respondent-husband did not appear before the court to oppose the transfer petition, despite being served with notice and being aware of the proceedings through a separate case filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The lack of opposition from the respondent was a key factor in the court’s decision.
| Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer of proceedings | Difficulty in traveling to Gorakhpur | Petitioner (Wife) |
| Transfer of proceedings | Convenience of attending court in Bhopal | Petitioner (Wife) |
| No Opposition | No appearance despite service of notice | Respondent (Husband) |
| No Opposition | Awareness of proceedings through Section 125 CrPC case | Respondent (Husband) |
Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument was not particularly innovative but was based on the established principle of convenience for the wife in matrimonial disputes. The lack of opposition from the respondent was a significant factor that influenced the court’s decision.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this case. However, the main issue before the court was:
- Whether the transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 by the respondent-husband from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, is justified?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 by the respondent-husband from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, is justified? | The Court held that the transfer of proceedings from the Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, was justified, considering the petitioner’s pleadings and the respondent’s lack of opposition. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The decision was based on the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and the lack of opposition from the respondent. The Court considered the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 | The Court acknowledged that the proceedings were initiated under this provision. |
| Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | The Court noted that the respondent was aware of the transfer petition due to a separate case initiated by the petitioner under this provision. |
| Inherent powers of the Supreme Court | The Court exercised its inherent powers to transfer the case from one court to another. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Transfer of proceedings due to difficulty in traveling to Gorakhpur | The Court accepted this submission as a valid reason for transfer. |
| Transfer of proceedings for convenience of attending court in Bhopal | The Court accepted this submission and found it justified. |
| No appearance despite service of notice | The Court noted the respondent’s lack of opposition as a factor in allowing the transfer. |
| Awareness of proceedings through Section 125 CrPC case | The Court used this to infer that the respondent was aware of the transfer petition but chose not to oppose it. |
The Court did not specifically cite any authorities in its reasoning. However, the Court’s decision was based on the following:
- The Court considered the petitioner’s request for transfer of proceedings from the Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, as justified.
- The Court noted that the respondent was served and was aware of the proceedings but did not appear to oppose the transfer.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the petitioner’s plea for convenience and the respondent’s lack of opposition. The Court noted that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and chose not to appear, which was interpreted as a tacit acceptance of the transfer. The Court also considered the fact that the wife had a separate case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, indicating that she was already pursuing legal remedies and would benefit from having the matrimonial case transferred to her location.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Convenience | 40% |
| Respondent’s Lack of Opposition | 40% |
| Respondent’s Awareness of Proceedings | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or rejected any specific arguments. The decision was straightforward based on the facts and the lack of opposition from the respondent.
The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The petitioner requested a transfer due to her difficulty in traveling to Gorakhpur.
- The respondent was aware of the proceedings but did not oppose the transfer.
- The Court found the transfer to be justified based on the circumstances.
The judgment stated, “Having regard to the pleadings and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that request for transfer of proceedings from the Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, is justified.”
The judgment also stated, “Consequently, the petition bearing H.M.A. No.493 of 2018 , titled as “Prem Prakash Srivastava v. Shakun Srivastava ”, pending in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh is transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.”
Further, the court directed, “The Family Court at Gorakhpur is directed to transmit the entire record to the transferee Court immediately.”
There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous by a single judge.
Key Takeaways
- Matrimonial cases can be transferred from one state to another based on the convenience of the parties.
- The lack of opposition from the respondent can be a significant factor in a transfer petition.
- The Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases to ensure justice and convenience.
The judgment sets a precedent for considering the convenience of the parties, particularly the wife, in matrimonial disputes. It underscores the importance of responding to court notices and the consequences of not doing so.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Family Court at Gorakhpur to transmit the entire record of the case to the Family Court at Bhopal immediately. The transferee court was directed to decide the case expeditiously, preferably by 31 December 2022.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can transfer matrimonial cases from one state to another based on the convenience of the parties, especially when there is no opposition from the other party. This decision reinforces the principle that the court will consider the convenience of the parties, particularly the wife, in matrimonial disputes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it highlights the practical application of the Supreme Court’s power to transfer cases.
Conclusion
In the case of Shakun Srivastava vs. Prem Prakash Srivastava, the Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by the wife, moving the matrimonial case from Gorakhpur to Bhopal. This decision was based on the petitioner’s convenience and the respondent’s lack of opposition. The court directed the transfer of records and set a timeline for the transferee court to decide the case. This judgment underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring justice and convenience in matrimonial disputes.