Supreme Court Transfers Matrimonial and Criminal Cases for Convenience of Wife

The Supreme Court, in the case of Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati, addressed multiple matrimonial disputes between the petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband). The Court ruled in favor of transferring both a divorce case and a criminal case to a more convenient jurisdiction for the wife. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that the convenience of the wife is usually prioritized in matrimonial disputes.

Background of the Case

The case involved multiple legal proceedings between the parties. The wife, Ankita Bhati, had initiated the following cases in Solan, Himachal Pradesh:

A maintenance petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 before the Additional District Judge, Solan.
A complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, Solan.
A petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli.

Meanwhile, the husband, Dev Raj Singh Bhati, had filed a divorce petition before the Family Court in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. Additionally, a criminal case filed by the wife under Sections 323, 341, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer.

The wife sought the transfer of these cases to Solan, Himachal Pradesh, citing convenience and ongoing legal proceedings in the same jurisdiction.

Key Legal Issues

Should matrimonial and related criminal cases be transferred for the convenience of the wife?
Was the transfer of the criminal case justified despite opposition from the respondent?
Did the non-inclusion of the State Government as a party affect the legitimacy of the transfer petition?

Petitioner’s (Wife’s) Arguments

The wife contended:

That she was already involved in multiple legal proceedings in Solan, making it inconvenient to attend hearings in Jaisalmer.
That the consistent legal principle was that the wife’s convenience is to be given preference in matrimonial disputes.
That the transfer of the criminal case was necessary for a fair and convenient trial.

Respondent’s (Husband’s) Arguments

The husband, represented by senior counsel, opposed the transfer, arguing:

That the criminal case in Jaisalmer had already commenced, and charges had been framed.
That the State Government was not made a party in the transfer petition, making the request improper.
That transferring the criminal case would cause inconvenience to him.

Supreme Court’s Observations

On the Transfer of the Divorce Case

The Supreme Court noted:

“The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has not raised serious issue about the transfer of the petition for divorce filed by the husband.”

The Court found no substantial opposition to transferring the divorce case to Solan.

On the Transfer of the Criminal Case

The Court rejected the respondent’s objections, stating:

“The criminal case pending in the Court at Jaisalmer arises out of the matrimonial dispute. The consistent view taken by this Court is that normally the convenience of the wife is to be seen when the cases arise out of matrimonial disputes.”

Regarding the non-inclusion of the State Government as a party, the Court ruled:

“Even if we pass an order of transfer, the State will hardly be affected, considering the nature of the criminal proceedings.”

On the Question of Fair Trial

The Court emphasized that the transfer would not affect the respondent’s right to a fair trial:

“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.”

The Court also noted that the respondent was already attending multiple proceedings in Solan, making it reasonable for all cases to be consolidated there.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions and ruled:

The divorce case filed by the husband in Jaisalmer is transferred to the Family Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
The criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer, is transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan.
The trial court in Solan should coordinate hearing dates for all related cases.
The husband may apply for an exemption from personal appearance, except when his presence is absolutely necessary.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has important implications:

Reinforces the preference for the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes.
Establishes that criminal cases arising from matrimonial disputes can also be transferred.
Allows courts to ensure procedural fairness while balancing convenience.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati aligns with established legal principles regarding matrimonial disputes. By transferring both the divorce and criminal cases, the Court ensured procedural convenience and fairness while maintaining judicial efficiency.

Petitioner Name: Ankita Bhati.
Respondent Name: Dev Raj Singh Bhati.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Jaisalmer, Rajasthan & Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 12-07-2023.

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

Download Judgment: ankita-bhati-vs-dev-raj-singh-bhati-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-07-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Alimony and Maintenance
See all petitions in Domestic Violence
See all petitions in Child Custody
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Transferred
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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