SANTHINI Vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A two-Judge Bench in Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam, 2017(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 358 : 2017(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 373 : (2017) 4 SCC 150 while dealing with transfer petition seeking transfer of a case instituted under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the 1955 Act') pending on the file of IInd Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, took note of the grounds of transfer and keeping in view the approach of the Court to normally allow the transfer of the proceedings having regard to the convenience of the wife, felt disturbed expressing its concern to the difficulties faced by the litigants travelling to this Court and, accordingly, posed the question whether there was any possibility to avoid the same. It also took note of the fact that in the process of hearing of the transfer petition, the matrimonial matters which are required to be dealt with expeditiously are delayed. That impelled the Court to pass an order on 09.01.2017 which enumerated the facts including the plight asserted by the wife, the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Sec. 19 of the 1955 Act, and reflected on the issues whether transfer of a case could be avoided and alternative mode could be thought of. Dwelling upon the said aspects, the Court articulated:-

(2.) The observation made in Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 to the effect that on an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each Court on each admission day was noticed. The learned Judges apprised themselves about the observations made in Mona Aresh Goel Vs. Aresh Satya Goel, (2000) 9 SCC 255 Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranga, (2000) 9 SCC 355 Deepa Vs. Anil Panicker, (2000) 9 SCC 441 Archana Rastogi Vs. Rakesh Rastogi, (2000) 10 SCC 350 Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480 Neelam Bhatia Vs. Satbir Singh Bhatia, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 65 : (2004) 13 SCC 436 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 323 Soma Choudhury Vs. Gourab Choudhaury, (2004) 13 SCC 462 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 341 Rajesh Rani Vs. Tej Pal, (2007) 15 SCC 597 Vandana Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, 2008(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 421 : (2008) 11 SCC 768 and Anju Ohri Vs. Varinder Ohri, (2007) 15 SCC 556 which rest on the principle of "expedient for ends of justice" to transfer the proceedings. It also adverted to Premlata Singh Vs. Rita Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 277 wherein this Court had not transferred the proceedings but directed the husband to pay for travelling, lodging and boarding expenses of the wife and/or person accompanying her for each hearing. The said principle was also followed in Gana Saraswathi Vs. H. Raghu Prasad, (2000) 10 SCC 277.

(3.) The two-Judge Bench, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Senior Counsel who was requested to assist the Court, made certain references to the doctrine of 'forum non conveniens" and held that it can be applied to matrimonial proceedings for advancing the interest of justice. The learned Additional Solicitor General assisting the Court suggested about conducting the proceedings by videoconferencing. In that context, it has been held:-