Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed a transfer application filed by the wife seeking to shift pending divorce proceedings from the Family Court at Pune to the Civil Court at Kalamb, Osmanabad. The Court held that the transfer request was a strategic ploy to delay final adjudication and was unsupported by genuine hardship. It allowed the wife to appear via video conferencing if permitted by the Family Court and directed the husband to pay ₹5,000 per physical appearance to cover her travel costs. The Family Court was instructed to conclude the matter within three months.
Facts
The applicant, a housewife residing in Osmanabad, sought transfer of divorce proceedings initiated by her husband at the Family Court in Pune. She cited financial constraints, ill-health, and long-distance travel difficulties (280 km between Pune and Osmanabad) as reasons. The couple had married in 2016 through an inter-caste love marriage. Allegations of mental and physical cruelty, alcoholism, and extramarital affairs were made against the husband.
She alleged she was financially dependent on her parents, suffered from chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension, and piles, and was advised by her doctor to avoid travel. Despite these challenges, she expressed willingness to cohabit with the respondent.
Issues
- Whether the wife had demonstrated genuine hardship to justify the transfer of divorce proceedings from Pune to Osmanabad.
- Whether the application was bona fide or a tactical delay mechanism.
- Whether modern technological alternatives such as video conferencing mitigate the inconvenience of physical appearances in matrimonial litigation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that she was unable to regularly travel between Osmanabad and Pune due to health issues and lack of financial independence. Each trip reportedly cost around ₹10,000 and her medical conditions prevented her from undertaking long-distance travel. Her counsel cited two judgments in support:
- Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41, where the Supreme Court permitted transfer of proceedings in view of hardship faced by the wife.
- Sunita v. Baliram (2012) 2 Mah LJ 143, where the Bombay High Court held that convenience of the wife in matrimonial matters is a relevant consideration.
Despite her allegations of cruelty, the wife stated she was still willing to resume matrimonial life with the husband, underscoring that she was not initiating the divorce proceedings.
Respondent’s Arguments
The husband opposed the transfer request, arguing that it was a delay tactic at a critical stage of the trial. He submitted that the matter was fixed for final hearing, and the wife had already delayed proceedings for four years. The respondent, a private software employee, stated that he was the sole breadwinner caring for his ailing mother, and traveling to Osmanabad would be difficult and risk his employment.
He pointed to multiple absences by the wife in the Pune Family Court and noted that her counsel had appeared regularly, thereby disproving her claims of hardship. He offered to reimburse travel expenses (initially ₹2,000, later increased to ₹5,000) if her presence was required. He also highlighted the availability of video conferencing at the Pune Court.
Reliance was placed on:
- Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, which held that each transfer petition must be examined on its own merits, and courts must avoid abuse of leniency.
- Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017 SCC OnLine SC 236), where the Supreme Court encouraged the use of video conferencing as an alternative to transfer in matrimonial cases.
- Abhilasha Gupta v. Harimohan Gupta (2021) 9 SCC 730, where the apex court held that transfer should be avoided at an advanced stage of trial.
Analysis of the Law
The Court balanced the convenience of both parties and emphasized that transfer applications in matrimonial disputes are not to be granted routinely. While recognizing that the convenience of the wife is an important consideration, the Court noted that this principle must not be misused to delay justice.
The Court applied the principles laid down in Abhilasha Gupta to emphasize that proceedings at the advanced stage of trial should not be disrupted unless compelling reasons are shown. It noted that the petitioner had attended the Pune Court multiple times and was regularly represented by her lawyer, which negated the claim of hardship. Moreover, the wife’s own conduct, including delays in filing a written statement and repeated absences, indicated an intent to stall proceedings.
Precedent Analysis
- Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) and Sunita v. Baliram (2012) support the general principle that convenience of the wife is paramount. However, the Court found these inapplicable as the wife’s conduct and the stage of trial outweighed such considerations.
- Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) warned against over-lenient transfer orders. The Court relied on this to highlight the potential for misuse.
- Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam (2017) was cited to justify that technological alternatives like video conferencing offer a viable solution and should be preferred over physical transfer of proceedings.
- Abhilasha Gupta v. Harimohan Gupta (2021) was central to the judgment, reinforcing that transfer at an advanced stage of trial is not permissible without strong justification.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case of genuine hardship. It found inconsistencies in her claims — including simultaneous allegations of cruelty and willingness to cohabit. Her delay in filing applications, repeated absence from proceedings, and the fact that the matter was now listed for final arguments all indicated that the transfer application was a ploy to delay proceedings.
The Court emphasized:
“Such misuse of the process cannot be permitted.”
It held that the inconvenience pleaded by the wife was vague, unconvincing, and contradicted by her conduct. In contrast, the husband’s obligations — including his job and responsibility toward an ailing mother — made his inconvenience more tangible.
Conclusion
The transfer application was dismissed. However, to balance equities, the Court allowed the petitioner to request video conferencing before the Family Court and directed the Court to consider it on merits. If physical presence was required, the respondent was directed to pay ₹5,000 per appearance toward her expenses. The Family Court, Pune, was instructed to conclude the case preferably within three months of the order.
Implications
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation that the judicial process cannot be derailed by tactical litigation. While courts remain sensitive to the position of women in matrimonial matters, procedural fairness and the right to speedy justice must also be protected. The ruling encourages the use of video conferencing as a practical solution and sets a precedent for dismissing transfer petitions lacking bona fide hardship.
FAQs
1. Can matrimonial proceedings be transferred based on the wife’s convenience alone?
Not always. While courts consider the wife’s convenience seriously, transfer is not automatic. The applicant must demonstrate genuine hardship or risk of injustice, especially if the trial is at an advanced stage.
2. Is video conferencing a valid alternative to transferring family court cases?
Yes. Courts increasingly encourage video conferencing to minimize travel and disruption, especially when the case can be fairly tried without physical relocation.
3. When is a transfer application likely to be rejected by the court?
If the application is filed at an advanced stage of trial, lacks substantial hardship proof, or appears to be a delaying tactic, courts are likely to reject such requests.
