Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial Cases for Wife’s Convenience: Ankita Bhati vs. Dev Raj Singh Bhati (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 13, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 643

Judges: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol

When a marriage breaks down, it often leads to multiple legal battles. Can a wife request that all her cases against her husband be moved to a single location for her convenience? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case involving a couple embroiled in several legal proceedings. The court considered whether to transfer cases to a location convenient for the wife, especially when criminal charges are involved. This judgment clarifies the principles for transferring cases in matrimonial disputes. The bench consisted of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol. Justice Abhay S. Oka authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Ankita Bhati (the wife) and Dev Raj Singh Bhati (the husband). The dispute resulted in multiple legal cases filed by both parties. The wife initiated several proceedings in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, including a maintenance petition, a domestic violence complaint, and a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Additionally, she filed a criminal case in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, against her husband for offences under Sections 323, 341, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The husband, on the other hand, filed a divorce petition in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The wife sought to transfer the divorce petition and the criminal case from Jaisalmer to Solan for her convenience.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The wife, Ankita Bhati, filed multiple cases in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, including a maintenance petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She also filed a criminal case in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, under Sections 323, 341, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The husband, Dev Raj Singh Bhati, filed a divorce petition in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. The wife then filed transfer petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking to move the divorce petition and the criminal case from Jaisalmer to Solan, where her other cases were pending. The husband opposed the transfer of the criminal case.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceeding from one High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other State.
• Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases from one State to another.
• Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: This section provides for the maintenance of a wife by her husband.
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This Act provides for protection of women from domestic violence.
• Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Sections 323, 341 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections deal with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and cruelty by husband or his relatives.

The Court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The consistent view of the Court has been that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is normally to be considered.

Arguments

The wife, Ankita Bhati, argued for the transfer of both the divorce petition and the criminal case to Solan, Himachal Pradesh, citing her convenience as she was already pursuing other cases there.

The husband, Dev Raj Singh Bhati, did not seriously object to the transfer of the divorce petition. However, he strongly opposed the transfer of the criminal case, making the following submissions:

• Non-joinder of the State Government: The State Government was not made a party to the Transfer Petition.
• Commencement of Trial: The trial had commenced in the criminal case, with charges already framed.
• Reliance on Jyoti Mishra v. Dhananjay Mishra: The husband relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jyoti Mishra v. Dhananjay Mishra [(2010) 8 SCC 803], arguing that the transfer should not be allowed as it would cause hardship to the accused.
• Reliance on Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.: The husband relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 307], arguing that the transfer could affect the fairness of the trial.

The husband’s arguments were essentially that the transfer would cause inconvenience to him and that the State Government was a necessary party to the proceedings.

The innovativeness of the wife’s argument was that she sought to consolidate all the cases at one location for her convenience, which is a common practice in matrimonial disputes, but it was innovative in the context of a criminal case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues considered by the Court were:

• Whether the divorce petition filed by the husband should be transferred from Jaisalmer, Rajasthan to Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
• Whether the criminal case filed by the wife should be transferred from Jaisalmer, Rajasthan to Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
• Whether the State Government is a necessary party to the transfer petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed both the Transfer Petitions filed by the wife.

The Court also provided specific directions regarding the criminal case.

The Court held that the decision in Jyoti Mishra v. Dhananjay Mishra [(2010) 8 SCC 803] was distinguishable on facts. In Jyoti Mishra, there were other accused who were not parties to the transfer petition and the accused would not be in a position to attend the proceedings at the transferred location. In the present case, the husband was already attending proceedings in Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

The Court also distinguished the case of Nahar Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 307]. The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the transfer would affect the fairness of the trial.

The Court observed that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is normally to be considered.

The Court directed that the transferee court should endeavor to fix the same date in the criminal case which is fixed in the other matters pending in the Courts at Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

The Court also directed that the transferee court will grant exemption to the husband from personal appearance, subject to the condition that whenever the said Court passes an order requiring his personal presence, he shall personally remain present in the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be given significant consideration. The Court also considered that the husband was already attending other cases in Solan, and any potential prejudice to him could be minimized by granting exemptions from personal appearance and scheduling cases on the same day. The Court emphasized that transferring the case would be in the interest of both parties, as all cases would be heard at the same place.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, including the multiple proceedings initiated by the wife in Solan, the husband’s attendance in those proceedings, and the lack of any significant prejudice to the husband by the transfer. The Court also considered the legal principles related to the transfer of cases, but the factual context played a more significant role in its decision.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the husband’s arguments against the transfer of the criminal case. However, the Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes and that the husband’s concerns could be addressed through procedural safeguards.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is normally to be considered. The Court also considered the fact that the husband was already attending other proceedings in Solan, and that the transfer would allow all cases to be heard at the same place.

The Court gave the following reasons for its decision:

• The convenience of the wife is a primary consideration in matrimonial disputes.
• The husband was already attending other proceedings in Solan.
• The transfer would allow all cases to be heard at the same place.
• Any potential prejudice to the husband could be minimized by granting exemptions from personal appearance and scheduling cases on the same day.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The consistent view taken by this Court is that normally the convenience of wife is to be seen when the cases arise out of matrimonial dispute.”

“In the facts of this case, it is not the contention of the respondent that there are other accused who are not impleaded as parties.”

“When there are multiple proceedings between the husband and wife arising out of a matrimonial dispute, in fact, such transfer is in the interests of husband, as all cases between the parties will be heard at the same place.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

The implications of this decision are that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife will be given significant weight when considering the transfer of cases. This will likely lead to more cases being transferred to locations convenient for the wife, especially when she is already pursuing other cases there.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principle that the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration in matrimonial disputes.

Key Takeaways

• In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration when deciding on the transfer of cases.
• Courts may transfer cases, including criminal cases, to a location where the wife is already pursuing other legal proceedings.
• The presence of other accused who are not parties to the transfer petition is a factor that may prevent the transfer of a criminal case.
• The court may grant exemptions from personal appearance to the accused in criminal cases, especially when they are already attending other proceedings at the transferee location.
• The transfer of cases can be in the interest of both parties as it allows all cases to be heard at the same place.

This judgment will likely lead to more transfer petitions being filed by wives seeking to consolidate all their cases at one location. It also clarifies the circumstances under which criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes can be transferred.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The Divorce Petition No.7 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, was ordered to be transferred to the District Judge, Family Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
• The Criminal Case No.393 of 2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, was ordered to be transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
• The Court to which the criminal case was transferred was directed to endeavor to fix the same date in the criminal case which is fixed in the other matters pending in the Courts at Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
• The transferee Court was directed to grant exemption to the respondent-husband from personal appearance, subject to the condition that whenever the said Court passes an order requiring his personal presence, he shall personally remain present in the Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration when deciding on the transfer of cases, including criminal cases. The Court reaffirmed the existing principle that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the Court clarified the application of the existing principle to criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the wife’s transfer petitions, moving both the divorce petition and the criminal case from Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, to Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The Court emphasized the convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes and the fact that the husband was already attending other proceedings in Solan. This decision reinforces the principle that in such disputes, the wife’s convenience is a primary consideration.

Category

Parent Category: Family Law

Child Categories:

• Matrimonial Disputes
• Transfer of Cases
• Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Categories:

• Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Categories:

• Section 406, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: Can a wife request that her cases against her husband be moved to a single location?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court has held that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration. This means that courts may transfer cases to a location where the wife is already pursuing other legal proceedings.

Q: Can criminal cases be transferred in matrimonial disputes?

A: Yes, criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes can be transferred to a location convenient for the wife, especially if she is already pursuing other cases there.

Q: What if the husband has difficulty attending the transferred court?

A: The court may grant exemptions from personal appearance to the husband, provided he is present when his presence is specifically required.

Q: Does the State Government need to be a party to a transfer petition in matrimonial disputes?

A: No, the Supreme Court has held that the State Government is not a necessary party in such transfer petitions.

Q: What happens if there are other accused in the criminal case?

A: The presence of other accused who are not parties to the transfer petition may prevent the transfer of the criminal case.