TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 282 OF 2024

RUBY CHAUDHARY PETITIONER
VERSUS
RAJVEER RESPONDENT
ORDER

1. The petitioner, Ruby Chaudhary, has filed the present petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of a petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent, Rajveer, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition is titled “Rajveer Vs. Ruby Chaudhary” and is currently pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh under HMA Petition No.818/2023. The petitioner seeks to have the case transferred to the Family Court, Saket Courts, Delhi.

2. The respondent-husband, despite being duly served with the notice of the petition, has failed to appear in court. The record indicates that he remains unrepresented even at the time of the hearing. No counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent, which raises concerns regarding his participation in the proceedings.

Background and Prayer

The petitioner has requested the transfer on the grounds of convenience and fairness, asserting that her circumstances, including issues such as distance, financial constraints, and personal safety, make it exceedingly difficult for her to attend the hearings in Chandigarh. She has highlighted the inconvenience of having to travel from Delhi to Chandigarh to participate in the proceedings, which would cause undue hardship for her.

In support of her petition, the petitioner contends that having the case heard in Delhi would not only ease her physical and emotional burden but also ensure a more accessible and just process, considering her residence in Delhi and the possibility of better logistical and legal support in her hometown.

Legal Framework

Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the Supreme Court to transfer a case from one court to another if it is deemed necessary for the ends of justice. The application for transfer can be made by the party in whose favor the transfer is sought. The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the transfer if it is convinced that such a move is in the interest of justice and fairness.

The petitioner’s application is based on the claim that transferring the case to Delhi would provide greater convenience and relieve her of significant hardship, thus allowing her to effectively present her case before the court.

Current Status of the Case

While the respondent-husband, Rajveer, has been served notice, his failure to appear, even after multiple opportunities, raises concerns regarding his intention to contest the petition. His non-appearance could be viewed as an indication of his lack of interest in the case, though this does not necessarily preclude the court from making an informed decision on the transfer petition.

The Court may, in this instance, view the respondent’s absence as an opportunity to focus on the petitioner’s request for relief, especially when the transfer petition is supported by valid reasons and evidence of inconvenience. However, as per the norms of fairness, the respondent’s absence does not absolve the Court from evaluating the merit of the transfer petition carefully.

Possible Outcome

Considering the facts at hand, and especially in light of the respondent’s absence, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the petitioner’s request, transferring the case to the Family Court in Delhi, where she resides. This would ensure that the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing is protected without subjecting her to unnecessary hardship.

Furthermore, if the respondent continues to remain unrepresented and fails to participate in the proceedings, the Court may move forward with the case, taking into account the available legal framework and evidence presented by the petitioner.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 282 of 2024 presents a valid request for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Chandigarh to Delhi, based on the petitioner’s genuine concerns regarding personal and financial hardships. With the respondent’s continued absence from the proceedings, the Court may lean towards granting the transfer to ensure a just and equitable process for the petitioner.

The matter will likely be decided in favor of the petitioner if the Court finds her arguments compelling, especially in the absence of any representation from the respondent. This would reflect the Court’s broader commitment to ensuring justice is served in a fair and accessible manner, particularly in matters involving personal and familial disputes