Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayshree Gautam vs Anurag Mishra on 15 January, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
1 MCC-4539-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 4539 of 2024
JAYSHREE GAUTAM
Versus
ANURAG MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Anil Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
In view of short issue involved in the case, therefore, there is no
requirement to serve the respondent.
2 . With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, heard
finally at motion stage.
3 . This is a petition filed under Section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of
RCSHM No.0000381/2024, pending before the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Satna, District Satna to the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Anuppur (M.P.).
4 . I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
record of the case.
5 . Perusal of petition filed by the applicant reveals that applicant has
filed present petition for transferring of RCSHM No.0000381/2024, pending
before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna, District Satna to
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Anuppur (M.P.) as mentioned in petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
2 MCC-4539-2024
Principles Governing transfer of matrimonial case : –
6 . So far as transfer of case, pertaining to matrimonial dispute is
concerned, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Veni Nigam Vs.
Harish Nigam, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 150, in para 13 to 20 has discussed
the matter and issued guideline which are as under :
“13. We have considered the above suggestions. In this respect, we
may also refer to the doctrine of forum non conveniens which can be applied
in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest of justice. Under the said
doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings at a
forum which is considered not to be convenient and there is any other forum
which is considered to be more convenient for the interest of all the parties at
the ends of justice. In Modi Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S.G.
Cricket Pte. Ltd., reported in AIR 2003 SC 1177 this Court observed:
“19. In Spiliada Maritime, 1987 AC 460 case, the House of Lords laid
down the following principle:
“The fundamental principle applicable to both the stay of English
proceedings on the ground that some other forum was the appropriate forum
and also the grant of leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was
that the court would choose that forum in which the case could be tried more
suitably for the interest of all the parties and for the ends of justice…….”
The criteria to determine which was a more appropriate forum, for the
purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the court would look for that forum with
which the action had the most real and substantial connection in terms of
convenience or expense, availability of witnesses, the law governing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
3 MCC-4539-2024
relevant transaction and the places where the parties resided or carried on
business. If the court concluded that there was no other available forum
which was more appropriate than the English court, it would normally refuse
a stay. If, however, the court concluded that there was another forum which
was prima facie more appropriate, the court would normally grant a stay
unless there were circumstances militating against a stay. It was noted that as
the dispute concerning the contract in which the proper law was English law,
it meant that England was the appropriate forum in which the case could be
more suitably tried.”
Though these observations have been made in the context of granting
anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in regulating the exercise
of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings are instituted. In a civil
proceeding, the plaintiff is the dominus litis but if more than one court has
jurisdiction, court can determine which is the convenient forum and lay down
conditions in the interest of justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be
availed.
14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings
are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The
husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is
convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to
both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of video
conferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is
no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every
district in the country video conferencing is now available. In any case,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
4 MCC-4539-2024
wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilized and all the
High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate
the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial
cases where one of the parties resides outside court’s jurisdiction is one of
such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of
video conference, proceedings may be conducted on video conferencing,
obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this
Court has directed recording of evidence by video conferencing.
15. The other difficulty faced by the parties living beyond the local
jurisdiction of the court is ignorance about availability of suitable legal
services. Legal Aid Committee of every district ought to make available
selected panel of advocates whose discipline and quality can be suitably
regulated and who are ready to provide legal aid at a specified fee. Such
panels ought to be notified on the websites of the District Legal Services
Authorities/State Legal Services Authorities/National Legal Services
Authority. This may enhance access to justice consistent with Article 39A of
the Constitution.
16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilized also for
service on parties or receiving communication from the parties. Every district
court must have at least one e-mail ID. Administrative instructions for
directions can be issued to permit the litigants to access the court, especially
when litigant is located outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. A
designated officer/manager of a district court may suitably respond to such e-
mail in the manner permitted as per the administrative instructions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
5 MCC-4539-2024
Similarly, a manager/ information officer in every district court may be
accessible on a notified telephone during notified hours as per the
instructions. These steps may, to some extent, take care of the problems of
the litigants. These suggestions may need attention of the High Courts.
17. We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain
directions which may provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings
on account of inability of a party to contest proceedings at a place away from
their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not transferred
it will result in denial of justice.
18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in
proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between
parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located
outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are
instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate
any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does
not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be
sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order
XXV CPC.
iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out
station may communicate.
19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce hardship
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
6 MCC-4539-2024
to the litigants as noted above in the Order of this Court dated 9th January,
2017, ……………………..
20. ………………..A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts for
appropriate action.”
6 . Hon’ble Apex Court in Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan Vs. Navin
Chauhan, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2020, has held in para 4 as
under :-
“4. We, accordingly, order that the trial at Gautambudh Nagar
shall be conducted and facilitated by the Family Court, District
Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. through video conferencing.”
7 . As per Rules, namely, ” District Courts of Madhya Pradesh Video
Conferencing Rules, 2018″ and in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4)
SCC 601 and Sarvesh Mathur Vs. The Registrar General High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871, evidence can be
recorded through video-conferencing. The applicant can participate in the
Court proceedings through video conferencing.
8 . Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das,
reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197, has held in paras 3 to 7 as under :-
“3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was
showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large
number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the
leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer
petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16307 MCC-4539-2024
therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.
4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In
this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that
there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and
there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is
willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her
companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court
at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is
adequately met.
5. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are
given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court
on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application
will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer
has been made out.
6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We, however, direct
that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and
her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend
the court at Delhi.
7. The respondent shall send in advance to the petitioner, money for a
2nd class AC train ticket for herself and a companion. The respondent shall
also pay stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion in a 3-star hotel.
The trial court shall ensure that the petitioner has been paid the travel
expenses in advance and that the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and
every occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
8 MCC-4539-2024
9 . Further, Hon’ble Apex Court in Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma,
reported in (2005) 11 SCC 535, has held in para 2 as under :-
“2. 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.”
Analysis and Findings :-
10. Now facts of the case would be examined in the light of
Principles of law/parameters laid down in aforesaid pronouncements.
11. Evidently, video conferencing facility is available at Principal
Judge, Family Court, Satna and also at Principal Judge, Family Court,
Anuppur (M.P.). Further, if in the instant case, any exigency arises and
physical presence of petitioner becomes necessary, then, learned trial Court
can pass appropriate order for payment of reasonable expenses, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including status
and financial condition of the parties, pertaining to travel/stay etc. as held by
Hon’ble Apex court in Anindita Das (supra) and Preeti Sharma (supra).
12. Hence, in view of observations/directions issued by Hon’ble Apex
Court in Krishna Veni Nigam(supra), Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan(supra),
Anindita Das (supra) and Preeti Sharma(supra) etc., there is no need to
transfer the case from Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar, to Principal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:1630
9 MCC-4539-2024
Judge, Family Court, Anuppur (M.P.).
13. Therefore, present petition is disposed off with a direction to
concerned Court at Satna and Anuppur (M.P.) to comply and proceed in
accordance with observations/directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in
Krishna Veni Nigam (Supra), Smt.Jyoti Singh(supra), Anindita Das (supra)
and Preeti Sharma(supra) as well as decision of Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Smt. Nishitakunwar Vs. DigvijaySingh passed in MCC No.1453 of
2023 dated 15.12.2023.
14. Hence, petition filed by the applicant is disposed off accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Hashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 16-01-2025
11:34:18
[ad_1]
Source link