Transfer of Matrimonial Cases: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Jurisdictional Convenience
The Supreme Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of *Surbhi Goyal (Agrawal) v. Ashutosh Banka*, where the petitioner-wife, Surbhi Goyal, sought the transfer of her divorce petition from the Family Court at Kushinagar Padrauna, Uttar Pradesh, to the Family Court at Samastipur, Bihar. This case highlights the issue of jurisdictional convenience and whether a divorce case should be transferred from one court to another based on the location and convenience of the parties involved.
The petitioner, Surbhi Goyal, contended that she was facing significant difficulty in attending hearings in Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, as she resided in Samastipur, Bihar. She filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to move the divorce case to a court within her jurisdiction to make it easier for her to attend the hearings. The respondent, Ashutosh Banka, did not contest the transfer petition, and the Supreme Court allowed the transfer.
Background of the Dispute
The divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband, Ashutosh Banka, was pending before the Family Court at Kushinagar Padrauna, Uttar Pradesh. However, the petitioner-wife, Surbhi Goyal, resided in Samastipur, Bihar. The petitioner argued that attending court hearings in Kushinagar caused undue hardship and inconvenience. As a result, the petitioner filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to transfer the case to the Family Court at Samastipur.
The respondent did not file any objections to the petitioner’s request, and on September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a notice and an interim order, staying the proceedings before the Family Court at Kushinagar. The matter was eventually heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the transfer of the case to Samastipur, Bihar.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by her counsel, argued that attending hearings in Kushinagar was causing significant distress and difficulty due to the long distance between her residence in Samastipur and the Family Court in Kushinagar. The petitioner emphasized that traveling such a long distance for each hearing placed undue financial and emotional burdens on her. She further argued that since she resided in Samastipur, transferring the case to a court within her jurisdiction would ensure that she could effectively participate in the proceedings without undue hardship.
The petitioner’s counsel also highlighted that the respondent had not raised any objections to the transfer petition. The petitioner’s counsel referred to the fact that matrimonial cases often involve sensitive and emotional issues, and the convenience of the parties should be considered to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to participate in the proceedings without unnecessary strain.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, Ashutosh Banka, did not oppose the transfer petition and did not present any arguments against the request to move the case to Samastipur. As the respondent did not appear to contest the petition, the Court proceeded with the matter on the grounds presented by the petitioner.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, referred to Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for the transfer of cases for the convenience of the parties. The Court emphasized that the convenience of the parties is an important factor to be considered when deciding whether to transfer a case. The Court noted that matrimonial disputes are often emotionally charged and that it was in the interest of justice to ensure that the parties could participate in the proceedings without facing undue hardship.
The Court recognized that the petitioner resided in Samastipur, and that attending hearings in Kushinagar would impose significant logistical difficulties. The Court observed that while the principles of judicial efficiency and minimizing delays are important, the convenience and well-being of the parties also needed to be considered. In this case, the petitioner’s hardship in traveling to Kushinagar was a valid reason for the transfer.
The Court also noted that the respondent had not raised any objections, which further supported the petitioner’s claim for the transfer of the case. The Court stated that in the absence of any opposing arguments from the respondent, it was appropriate to allow the transfer petition and facilitate the proceedings in a court that was more accessible to the petitioner.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by Surbhi Goyal and ordered that Divorce Petition No. 656 of 2020, titled *Ashutosh Banka v. Surbhi Goyal (Agrawal)*, pending before the Family Court at Kushinagar Padrauna, Uttar Pradesh, be transferred to the Family Court at Samastipur, Bihar. The Court directed that the Family Court at Kushinagar immediately transmit the entire record of the case to the transferee court.
The Court also directed both parties to appear before the Family Court in Samastipur on September 12, 2022, to begin the proceedings. Additionally, the Court mentioned that if any request for mediation was made by the parties, it should be considered by the concerned Family Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the convenience of the parties in matrimonial disputes. The Court recognized that the convenience and well-being of the parties should not be overlooked and that transferring the case to a court within the petitioner’s jurisdiction was a reasonable and just decision. This case also underscores the flexibility of the judicial system in accommodating the personal circumstances of parties in matrimonial disputes and ensuring that the process is fair and accessible.
The judgment sets an important precedent for future cases where a party may request the transfer of a matrimonial case to a different jurisdiction due to personal hardships, such as distance or accessibility. The Court’s approach demonstrates a balanced consideration of both practical and emotional factors in ensuring the proper administration of justice in sensitive cases.
Petitioner Name: Surbhi Goyal.Respondent Name: Ashutosh Banka.Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.Place Of Incident: Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh / Samastipur, Bihar.Judgment Date: 05-09-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: surbhi-goyal-vs-ashutosh-banka-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-09-2022.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 Property Division in Divorce Cases
See all petitions in Dowry Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 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
