The Supreme Court in the case NCV Aishwarya vs AS Saravana Karthik Sha observed that generally it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC, 1908.
The bench comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and the justice JK Maheshwari observed in matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties and the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and both the parties circumstances in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella both the parties are seeking their sustenance to life.
In the present case, a petition was filled by the husband for annulment of marriage before the Family Court, Vellore. At Chennai, before the Family Court. The Wife filled two petitions, Firstly, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and secondly, a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A transfer petition was filled by her before the Madras High Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of petition filed by her husband before the Family Court, Vellore, to the Chennai Family Court. It was submitted by her that her parents are old and that she is aged 21 years and not in a position to travel to Vellore through out the court proceedings without having any support. However, she approached the Apex Court, aggrieved with the dismissal of Transfer Petition.
It was noted by the Court that the appellant is 21 years old and does not have any source of income of her own as she is not employed and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelihood and In order to attend the court proceedings of the case filed by her husband at Vellore she has to travel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as on the account of their old age, her parents are not in a position to accompany her.
The bench noticed that to exercise power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the cardinal principle is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding.
Thus, in matrimonial matters, wherein Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, the spouses standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the spouses in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life, while given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, while considering transfer, it is the wife’s convenience which the court must looked.
It was also observed by the Court that is also just and proper to club all the three cases together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflict of decisions.
The bench observed that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent and it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.
