Supreme Court of India
N.C.V. AISHWARYA versus A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA on 18 July 2022
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1085
N.C.V. AISHWARYA
v.
A.S. SARAVANA KARTHIK SHA
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4894 of 2022)
JULY 18, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J. K. MAHESHWARI]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.24 – Transfer – Poweru/s.24, exercise of – Matrimonial matters – Petition filed byappellant-wife seeking transfer of a case for annulment of marriagefiled by respondent-husband before Family Court, Vellore to theFamily Court, Chennai – Rejected – On appeal, held: Cardinalprinciple for exercise of power u/s.24 is that the ends of justiceshould demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding– Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indiansociety, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be lookedat while considering transfer – Further, when two or moreproceedings are pending in different Courts between the same partiesraising common question of fact and law, decisions in the casesbeing interdependent, they should be tried together to avoidmultiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions – Inthe present case, appellant, aged about 21 years stays alone withher aged parents, it is difficult for her to travel all the way fromChennai to Vellore to attend the case filed by the respondent – Also,the appellant does not have any source of income of her own and isdependent on her parents – Further, she has also filed petitions forrestitution of conjugal rights and maintenance before Family Courtat Chennai – Petition filed by husband before Family Court, Velloretransferred to the Family Court at Chennai– All the three cases tobe clubbed together – Order passed by High Court set aside – HinduMarriage Act, 1955 – s.9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.125.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.24 – Transfer – Matrimonialmatters – Factors to be considered – Held: In matrimonial matters,while considering the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take intoconsideration the economic soundness of both the parties, socialstrata of the spouses, their behavioural pattern, standard of life
1085
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aprior and subsequent to marriage, circumstances of both the partiesin eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrellathey are seeking their sustenance to life.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4894of 2022.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2020 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras in TR.C.M.P. No.473 of 2020.
S, Gowthaman, Abhisar Thakral, S. Muthukrishnan, Ms. Hemlata,Advs. for the Appellant.
CHaripriya Padmanabhan, Prahu Ramasubramanian, RaghunathaSethupathy B., Shivani Vij, K. Paari Vendhan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
12
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.D
2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.11.2020 inTR.C.M.P. No.473 of 2020 whereby the High Court of Judicature atMadras has rejected the petition filed by the appellant-wife seekingtransfer of a petition, F.C.O.P. No.125 of 2020 filed by her respondent-husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Family Court at Chennai.E
3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent wasarranged and solemnized on 05.03.2020 at Kanna Mahal, Anna Salai,Vellore, in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs. It is the case ofthe respondent that the appellant started quarreling and fighting with therespondent for petty things and refused to consummate the marriage.FThe respondent filed the aforesaid F.C.O.P. No.125 of 2020 before theFamily Court, Vellore, for annulment of their marriage.
4. The appellant is a resident of Chennai. She has also filed twocases. H.M.O.P. No.1741 of 2021 has been filed by her before theFamily Court at Chennai against her husband for restitution of conjugalGrights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and M.C. Sr.No.672 of 2021 before the Family Court at Chennai for maintenanceunder Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
5. The appellant in her petition filed under Section 9 of the HinduMarriage Act has contended amongst others that without any reasonable H
excuse, the respondent withdrew from her society and that therespondent is bound to live with the appellant and give her conjugalcompanionship.
6. The appellant filed a petition under Section 24 of the Code ofCivil Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Madras fortransfer of F.C.O.P. No.125 of 2020 pending on the file of the FamilyCourt, Vellore to the Family Court at Chennai. According to the appellant,her parents are old and that she is aged 21 years and not in a position totravel to Vellore through out the court proceedings without having anysupport. In addition, the appellant contends that it would not be possiblefor her aged parents to accompany her to Vellore. She is totally dependenton her parents morally and financially. She is not employed and does nothave any other source of income. Moreover, she does not have anyaccommodation for staying at Vellore. The respondent has opposed thesaid petition. As noticed above, the High Court has dismissed the transferpetition.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennaiand that the appellant’s husband-respondent herein is the resident ofVellore and he is employed. The appellant who is 21 years old does nothave any source of income of her own as she is not employed and istotally dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In order to attend thecourt proceedings of the case filed by her husband at Vellore she has totravel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not ina position to accompany her on account of their old age. Secondly, theappellant has also filed a petition, H.M.O.P. No.1741 of 2021, for restitutionof conjugal rights and another petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for hermaintenance before the Family Court at Chennai.
9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demandthe transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, theCourts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of boththe parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern,their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto andthe circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood andunder whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to ABC
D
EF
G
H
Alife. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society,generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at whileconsidering transfer.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in differentCourts between the same parties which raise common question of factBand law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it isdesirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as toavoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.
11. As noticed above, the appellant is a young lady aged about 21years, staying alone along with her aged parents. Under the aboveCcircumstances, it is difficult for her to travel all the way from Chennai toVellore to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by the respondentseeking annulment of marriage. Further, it is also just and proper to cluball the three cases together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings andconflict of decisions. Therefore, the High Court was not justified inrejecting transfer petition bearing TR.C.M.P.No.473 of 2020, filed byDthe appellant herein.
12. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed.The Order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the High Court in TR.C.M.P.NO.473 of 2020 is set aside. We direct transfer of F.C.O.P. No.125 of2020 pending consideration before the Family Court, Vellore to theEjurisdictional Family Court at Chennai. We also direct the clubbing of theaforementioned three cases so that a common order may be passed bythe concerned Family Court at Chennai.
13. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
F14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Divya Pandey(Assisted by: Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
G
H