{"id":243054,"date":"2021-01-30T13:18:50","date_gmt":"2021-01-30T07:48:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=243054"},"modified":"2021-02-05T12:10:39","modified_gmt":"2021-02-05T06:40:39","slug":"restitution-of-conjugal-rights-read-how-supreme-court-imparted-justice-to-a-woman-despite-rejecting-her-transfer-petition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/restitution-of-conjugal-rights-read-how-supreme-court-imparted-justice-to-a-woman-despite-rejecting-her-transfer-petition\/","title":{"rendered":"Restitution of conjugal rights| Read how Supreme Court imparted justice to a woman despite rejecting her Transfer Petition"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a case dealing with Transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights from Palanpur, Gujarat to Mumbai after a previous Transfer Petition was dismissed, the single-judge bench of V. Ramasubramanian, J has held that the dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata<\/em>, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances. However, when a case is at its final stage, this Court will be extremely reluctant to order the transfer, as it may derail the entire process.<\/p>\n

In the present case, after three years of the dismissal of the first Transfer Petition, the petitioner came up with the present Transfer Petition on the ground that there are change of circumstances warranting a fresh look as her mother had died making it impossible for her to leave two minor daughter in Mumbai to attend to the hearings at Palanpur; and also because it was becoming difficult for her to defend the case, which was being listed for hearing on 2 to 3 occasions every month as the Family Court was imposing penalties upon her whenever a request for adjournment was sought or when the Legal Aid lawyer appointed on her behalf did not attend the Court. Further, the Family Court discarded the evidence of the petitioner and struck off her right of evidence after which the petitioner came up with the Transfer Petition.<\/p>\n

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights have already reached the stage of judgment and that once a request for transfer got rejected on an earlier occasion, a second petition cannot be maintained.<\/p>\n

Considering both the aspects, the Court was of the opinion that the present petition for transfer cannot be opposed solely on the ground that the earlier petition was dismissed. But at the same time, the petitioner will have to satisfy the court that there are change of circumstances and that there are sufficient grounds made out.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhile the hardship, both social and financial, pleaded by the petitioner deserves favourable consideration, the transfer of the case at this stage of the proceeding may not be appropriate.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court, hence, rejected the Transfer Petition but issued the following directions:<\/p>\n