Sumita Singh
v.
Kumar Sanjay & Another
(Supreme Court Of India)
Transfer Petn. (C) No. 396 of 2000 | 26-02-2001
2. Learned counsel for the husband states that the wife is an educated woman who is doing very well and can, therefore, travel to Ara while the husband is unemployed.
3. It is the husbands suit against the wife. It is the wifes convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute.
4. Accordingly, Matrimonial Case No. 30 of 2000 pending before the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar shall stand transferred to the District Judge, Delhi, who shall hear it himself or assign it for hearing to an appropriate forum.
5. No. order as to costs.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties ------------
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BHARUCHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL
Eq Citation
AIR 2002 SC 396
(2001) 10 SCC 41
LQ/SC/2001/563
HeadNote
Penal Code, 1860 - S. 498-A and S. 304-B — Transfer of matrimonial proceedings — Transfer of matrimonial proceedings filed by husband against wife in Ara, Bhojpur to Delhi — Transfer petition by wife — Husband's suit against wife — It is wife's convenience that, therefore, must be looked at — Circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make transfer petition absolute — Accordingly, Matrimonial Case No. 30 of 2000 pending before VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar shall stand transferred to District Judge, Delhi, who shall hear it himself or assign it for hearing to an appropriate forum — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss. 24 and 25