The petitioner is wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 9.7.2008 in Chennai. Due to misunderstandings between them, the respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.192 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengleput under the provisions of Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of marriage and the same is pending.
2. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner is resident of Avadi, she finds it very difficult to go to Chengleput to attend the Court; that if it is transferred to Family Court at Chennai, her relatives and a couple of Advocate friends at Chennai are prepared to help her; that it is also easier for her to travel to Chennai than to Chengleput; that according to convenience also transfer has to be made and that she is constantly threatened and it is not safe for her to go to Chengleput and there is no one else to accompany here.
3. In the counter affidavit, the above said allegations have been controverted and it is pleaded that she has well equipped facilities to travel to Avadi where she is living; that she, with sole intention to harass and humiliate this respondent has filed the application; that he is an advocate actively practicing in High Court, Madras and City Civil Court in the same campus and most of the advocates are known to him; that the purpose of filing this transfer petition is only to humiliate him in the presence of his colleague advocates; that he does not want his personal matter to become a public issue in front of the advocates and colleagues known to him; that transfer to Family Court at Chennai is an embarrassment to him and that no prejudice will be caused to both of them if the case is transferred to District Court at Thiruvallur for which he has to travel nearly 85 kms.
4. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is being a practicing lawyer in City Civil Court and High Court, Madras, feels embarrassing to have matrimonial matter before the Family Court at Chennai, in the midst of his colleagues. It is his further contention that if the petitioner feels it unsafe to go to Chengleput, any other place than Chennai may also be considered. He also stresses that the said apprehension is not genuine.
5. Per contra, Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the Family Court proceedings are being taken up in-camera and they are normally conducted inside the Judges' chambers, and there would be no question of embarrassment for the respondent and that Chennai is more convenient to both parties to have the enquiry.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision reported in CDJ 2001 SC 2469 [Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another] in which the wife sought for transfer of a matrimonial case from Bhojpur to Delhi and the case was pending in the Court in Ara. After hearing both sides, the Apex Court directed transfer of case to the District Judge, Delhi.
7. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would site a decision of Orissa High Court in I (2008) DMC 708 [Sujata Mohanty v. Radra Charan Mohanty] wherein the High Court refuses to heed to the request of the wife, since no ground was made out except saying that she being lady it is not safe for her to travel alone, however, directing the husband to pay expenses for to and fro travel of petitioner alongwith companion in train.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to two decisions of this Court in CDJ 2007 MHC 1138 [Vijayalakshmi @ Sindhuja v. R. Suresh Kumar] and CDJ 2008 MHC 5173 [Sylvia Jabakumari v. R.Anandaraj]where this Court has allowed the prayer of the wife in the matter of transfer of matrimonial cases as per her convenience.
9. In (2006)9 SCC 197 [Anindita Das v. Srijit Das] the Apex Court after referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on this point and concluded that it must be seen that at one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to ladies, since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court, that except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the Court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merits and that there is no ground for transfer has been made out. The Supreme Court also directed the husband to pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every hearing when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi.
10. Referring to the earlier decisions, the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"2. In support of this petition, a large number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri, Leena Makherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480]; Ram Gualam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad [(2002)10 SCC 551 ] and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 726]. These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. The do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent."
11. Following the decisions rendered in Anindita Das case (Supra) it is held that the request for transfer need not be considered as per the convenience of the wife on the ground that she got relatives and Advocate friends in Chennai. This Court is also considering the embarrassing situation where the respondent would be in a position to have his matrimonial issues dealt with in Family Court in Chennai where he is practicing as an advocate, in the midst of his advocate friends, colleagues and clients. It is no doubt true that the proceedings will be held in camera,even then coming to the Court and attending to the proceedings would certainly be an embarrassment to him in the considered view of this Court.
12. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I.D.O.P.192 of 2008 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengleput, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court Principal District Court, Tiruvellore, for disposal, according to law.
13. With the above direction the C.R.P is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.
ggs To
1. The Principal District Judge, Chengleput.
2. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvellore