- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner-wife sought transfer of two suits—Suit No. 553 of 2003 and Suit No. 163 of 2003, both titled Manjit Sharma v. Preeti Sharma—from the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, to the Court of the District Judge, Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi. The petition was filed before the Supreme Court as a transfer petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds under law for transferring the two matrimonial suits from Muzaffar Nagar to Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- She is unemployed and financially dependent on her uncle, making it difficult to defend the suits in Muzaffar Nagar.
- Other related matrimonial proceedings, including a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, are already pending in Delhi; therefore, convenience and judicial economy favored transfer.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the grounds advanced did not constitute “substantial” reasons to warrant transfer:
- The mere fact that the petitioner is a woman does not by itself justify transfer; the Court noted she could travel to Muzaffar Nagar.
- If consolidation of all proceedings at one forum were genuinely sought, the petitioner could apply for transfer of the Delhi cases to Muzaffar Nagar; the Court indicated willingness to entertain such a request.
- To mitigate hardship, the Court directed the respondent-husband to pay travel and stay expenses for the petitioner and one companion each time she attends court in Muzaffar Nagar, with the trial court ensuring compliance.
Holding and Implications
Transfer petitions dismissed.
Immediate Effect: The matrimonial suits will continue before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar. The respondent must bear the petitioner’s travel and lodging costs for each hearing.
Broader Implications: The order sets no new legal precedent; it applies established principles that transfer of proceedings requires substantial justification beyond personal inconvenience, even when the applicant is a woman.
Order
1. This is a wife's petition for transfer of Suit No. 553 of 2003 titled as Manjit Sharma v. Preeti Sharma pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar, U.P and Suit No. 163 of 2003 titled as Manjit Sharma v. Preeti Sharma pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar, U.P to the Court of District Judge, Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.
2. The grounds made out are that the petitioner is an unemployed lady and totally dependent on her uncle and that she will be hard-pressed to defend the suit at Muzaffar Nagar. It is also claimed that there is a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and certain other proceedings pending in Delhi. In our view, no substantial ground for transfer has been made out. If the petitioner wishes that all cases be tried at one place, she may apply for the same and we will transfer the cases pending in Delhi to Muzaffar Nagar. Merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar. At the highest she can be paid expenses for travel and stay. We, therefore, direct that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner and a companion travel and stay expenses on every occasion that the petitioner is required to go to Muzaffar Nagar. The Court at Muzaffar Nagar shall ensure that such payment is made to the petitioner on every occasion. With these directions, the transfer petitions are dismissed.
Alert