Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Rusia, J. refused to transfer the matrimonial dispute from Mandsaur to Gwalior.

The applicant/wife has filed the present petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer Matrimonial Case No.208/2017 from Family Court, Mandsaur to Family Court, Gwalior. The petition was filed by the respondent under Section 9 as well as under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Mandsaur. After receipt of summoning the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer mainly on the ground that being a lady it is not possible for her to travel all the way from Gwalior to Mandsaur and her parents and a two-year child is dependent on her.

The Court observed that the rule is that the convenience of a wife is required to be seen in the case of transfer of matrimonial cases. However, in the present case, the applicant is not a housewife but she is holding a higher post than the husband. She is working as Sub Divisional Officer in the Public Health Engineering Department. Further, in a matrimonial case, the presence of parties are not required at every stage, they are required to be present in Court only at the time of conciliation or evidence. Therefore, the wife cannot pray for transfer of all the matters to the place where she is residing as per her own convenience. The Court, therefore, refused to transfer the petition to the Gwalior Family Court.[Monika Gautam v. Jitendra, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1896, decided on 01-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of M. K. Hanjura, J. dismissed the applications filed for the transfer of the civil suits sub judice in the Court of the District Judge & Munsiff, Kathua, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu or Samba, on the grounds that all the advocates had refused to take up the case.

The facts of the case are that the parties had been in litigation over a piece of land that formed the subject matter of the suits before the Courts for decades and have contested the litigation even up to the Supreme Court. The applicants were represented by Senior Advocates practicing in the District Courts at Kathua and in one of these two suits after they had the receipt of the notice, they approached some Senior Advocates at Kathua to represent them and all of them refused to do so on the ground that the respondents were practicing advocates at District Court Kathua. Thus they filed this application as there was no effective representation.

The Court stated that Section 24 of the CPC does definitely confer powers on the Court to transfer the suits and appeals or other proceedings at any stage, either on application or suo motu but this power vested under Section 24 CPC with the Courts is a discretionary one and cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and should be done with care, caution and circumspection. It is not on the mere asking of a party that a suit can be transferred from one Court to the other. Section 24 of the Code has certain guidelines laid down for the transfer of suits etc., they are the balance of convenience or inconvenience to any party or to witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence; issue raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of litigants that they might not get justice in the Court in which suit is pending; important question of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; demand of interest of justice etc. On the satisfaction of the principles/guidelines evolved in various judicial dictums, the Court has not only the power but also the duty to transfer the case. But this case did not fall in any of the above guidelines thus the application was dismissed. [Bishan Dass v. State of J&K, CTA No. 01/2015, Order dated 26-02-2018]