- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das .
Factual and Procedural Background
The wife (petitioner) sought transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending in Delhi to a different forum, asserting that she is the primary caregiver of a six-year-old child, lacks independent income, and is in poor health. The present order is the Supreme Court’s decision on that transfer petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner’s circumstances—care of a six-year-old child, lack of income, and alleged ill-health—justify transfer of the matrimonial case from Delhi to another court.
- Whether the court should continue to apply a policy of leniency toward women seeking transfer, or evaluate each petition strictly on its individual merits.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner (Wife)
- Has exclusive responsibility for a six-year-old child and no one to look after the child during court visits.
- Lacks any independent source of income, making travel to Delhi burdensome.
- Claims to be in poor health, rendering travel difficult.
- Cited prior Supreme Court decisions to support the request for transfer.
Respondent (Husband)
- Undertook to pay all travel and stay expenses for the petitioner and one companion for every court appearance in Delhi.
- Pointed out that the child has grandparents who can provide care during court visits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri (2002) 10 SCC 136 | Relied on by petitioner to show the Court’s past leniency in allowing transfers at the instance of wives. | The Court held it was fact-specific and did not establish a binding rule. |
| Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480 | Offered for the same proposition of lenient transfer in favour of women. | Treated as fact-dependent and not a precedent. |
| Ram Gulam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad (2002) 10 SCC 551 | Invoked to support discretionary transfer on compassionate grounds. | Distinguished as limited to its own facts. |
| Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh (2003) 11 SCC 726 | Also cited for transfer based on the wife’s convenience. | The Court stated it does not lay down any general legal principle. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that earlier a policy of “leniency” toward women led to numerous transfer petitions, many of which it found to be an abuse of that leniency. It therefore resolved to evaluate each case strictly on its merits.
Applying that standard, the Court reasoned as follows:
- The petitioner’s claim of childcare difficulty was unpersuasive because the six-year-old child could be cared for by the grandparents.
- The respondent’s undertaking to bear all travel and accommodation expenses adequately addressed the petitioner’s lack-of-income argument.
- The allegation of ill-health lacked any specific supporting particulars; moreover, if genuinely unwell on any given date, the petitioner could request exemption from personal appearance.
Given these factors, the Court concluded that no sufficient ground for transfer existed.
Holding and Implications
TRANSFER PETITION DISMISSED.
The respondent is directed to pay, in advance, 2nd class AC train fare for the petitioner and one companion and to cover their stay in a 3-star hotel for each required appearance in Delhi. The trial court must ensure compliance with these financial arrangements. The decision reinforces the Court’s shift from automatic leniency toward women in transfer matters to a merit-based assessment, but it does not establish new substantive precedent beyond the immediate parties.
Order
1. This transfer petition has been filed by the wife on the ground that the petitioner has a small child of six years. She has further claimed that she has no source of income and it is difficult for her to attend the court at Delhi. She has further claimed that she is not keeping good health.
2. In support of this petition, a large number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri (2002) 10 SCC 136, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480, Ram Gulam 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. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as a precedent.
3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.
4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.
5. 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 merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out.
6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We, however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.
7. The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, money for a 2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. The respondent shall also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion in a 3-star hotel. The trial court shall ensure that the petitioner has been paid the travel expenses in advance and that the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.
Alert