Divorce Case Transfer: Supreme Court Grants Petitioner's Request for Venue Change

The Supreme Court of India, in its ruling dated February 25, 2022, allowed the petition for transferring a divorce case from Meerut, Uttar Pradesh to Dehradun, Uttarakhand, considering the convenience of the petitioner, Manisha Jain, who resides in Dehradun. The case was originally filed by Rajeev Jindal in 2019 before the Family Court of Meerut, but the petitioner sought the transfer to the Family Court in Dehradun, citing her residence in Uttarakhand as the primary reason.

Background of the Case

In 2019, Rajeev Jindal filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, against his wife, Manisha Jain. The couple had been facing marital discord, leading to the filing of the petition. However, Manisha Jain, who resides in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, found it difficult to travel to Meerut for hearings, which led her to file a transfer petition in the Supreme Court.

Manisha Jain, through her counsel, argued that the Family Court in Meerut was too far from her place of residence, making it challenging for her to attend hearings and engage with her legal representatives. She sought the transfer of the case to the competent Family Court at Dehradun, where she resided with her children.

The respondent, Rajeev Jindal, did not oppose the petition for transfer. His counsel agreed to the move, acknowledging the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner. The respondent’s position was that he had no objection to the transfer as long as the legal procedures were followed.

Legal Proceedings

2019: The respondent filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court, Meerut.
2020: The petitioner filed a Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court, seeking the transfer of the divorce case to Dehradun.
February 25, 2022: The Supreme Court allowed the Transfer Petition, transferring the case to the Family Court at Dehradun.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s (Manisha Jain’s) Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued:

The petitioner resides in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and traveling to Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, is a significant burden due to distance and financial constraints.
It would be more convenient and less costly for the petitioner to attend hearings in Dehradun, where she has been residing with her children.
The respondent has no objection to the transfer, and this change of venue will not prejudice either party.

Respondent’s (Rajeev Jindal’s) Arguments

The respondent, through his counsel, stated:

He had no objection to the transfer of the case to the Family Court in Dehradun, as the convenience of the petitioner was a valid consideration.
The respondent was agreeable to the legal process being followed and did not wish to impede the petitioner’s request.

Supreme Court’s Observations

On the Convenience of the Petitioner

The Court noted:

“Considering that the petitioner resides in Dehradun, it would be both convenient and cost-effective for her to pursue the case in the Family Court at Dehradun. The respondent has no objection to the transfer of the case, and the transfer will not prejudice his legal position.”

On the Practical Difficulties of Attending Court Hearings

The Court recognized the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner:

“Attending hearings in Meerut, given the geographical distance, would cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The transfer will facilitate the legal process and ensure the petitioner can fully participate in the proceedings.”

On the Role of the Family Court in Matrimonial Disputes

The Court observed that:

“Family Court proceedings are meant to provide a resolution to matrimonial disputes with minimal hardship to the parties. Transferring the case to a more convenient location aligns with this principle.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The Transfer Petition was allowed, and the case was directed to be transferred from the Family Court of Meerut to the Family Court of Dehradun.
The Court emphasized that the transfer was granted based on the convenience of the petitioner and the absence of any objections from the respondent.
The Court directed that the case proceed in Dehradun, with both parties notified of the change.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for matrimonial disputes:

Access to Justice: The ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that individuals can access the justice system without facing undue hardship due to geographical distance.
Convenience of Parties: The decision reflects the Court’s focus on the practical realities of legal proceedings and the importance of accommodating the personal circumstances of the parties involved.
Judicial Discretion: The Court affirmed that it has the discretion to transfer cases when there is a valid reason, such as convenience or hardship faced by one of the parties.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of flexibility in the judicial process and ensures that matrimonial disputes are resolved in a manner that is fair and practical for both parties involved.

Petitioner Name: Manisha Jain.
Respondent Name: Rajeev Jindal.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka.
Place Of Incident: Dehradun.
Judgment Date: 25-02-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: manisha-jain-vs-rajeev-jindal-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-25-02-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Mutual Consent Divorce
See all petitions in Alimony and Maintenance
See all petitions in Child Custody
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Divorce Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Divorce Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Divorce Cases Category