Supreme Court: While hearing a transfer petition by under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by petitioner- wife for transferring a petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot, Punjab, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. noted that the caste of both the parties was mentioned in the memo of parties. The Court directed all the High Courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties.
The Court noted that the caste of both the parties was mentioned in the memo of parties, besides their other details. The Court said that there was no reason for mentioning the caste/religion of any litigant either before the Court itself or the Courts below. The Court said that such practice must be shunned and ceased forthwith. Therefore, the Court directed that the caste or religion of parties should not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the Courts below.
Further, the Court directed all the High Courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties in any petition/suit/proceeding filed before the High Court or the Subordinate Courts under their respective jurisdictions. The Court said the said direction should be brought to the notice of the members of the Bar and the Registry for immediate compliance and a copy of the order shall be placed before the Registrar concerned for perusal and for circulation to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for strict compliance.
Regarding the transfer petition, the Court noted that no appearance was made on behalf of the respondent-husband and the parties were referred to mediation but could not arrive at a settlement. On 29-11-2023, the Court had directed both the parties to appear virtually on the next date of hearing. The Court also noted that the petitioner-wife had informed the respondent- husband about the order dated 29-11-2023, however, no appearance was made. Therefore, the Court allowed the transfer petition and transferred the pending petition from the Principal Judge, Family Court, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot, Punjab.
[Shama Sharma v. Kishan Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 88, Order dated: 10-01-2024]
