High CourtDivision Bench2022-08-05Appeal allowed; transfer ordered; High Court or...

Ruchi Rawat v. Principal Judge, Family Court Etah & Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2022

Neutral Citation:[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1148

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer
J.K. Maheshwari
Judgment Date: 2022-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, is ordered forthwith. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, shall transmit the case records promptly to the transferee court. The parties shall bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; transfer ordered; High Court order set aside; costs to be borne by the parties; pending applications disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ruchi Rawat

Respondents

Principal Judge, Family Court Etah
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kartikeya Bhargava, Adv.

Counsels for Respondents

• Vaibhav Mishra, Adv.
• Akansh Bansal, Adv.
• Parmanand Gaur, Adv.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ruchi Rawat v. Principal Judge, Family Court Etah & Anr. concerns a transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 CPC. The husband (respondent) had filed Original Suit No.23 of 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Etah. The appellant-wife, Ruchi Rawat, contends that she has no independent income and resides with her parents in Mathura; she is financially and emotionally dependent, and traveling from Mathura to Etah to prosecute the case would cause substantial hardship. She also alleges threats by the respondent and his brother during her court appearances. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the transfer petition. The Supreme Court, recognizing the need to protect a wife's convenience in matrimonial transfers and considering socio-economic factors, cites the principle that ends of justice should drive transfer under Section 24 CPC and emphasizes the wife’s convenience in such cases. On the facts, the Court finds it just and proper to transfer Original Suit No.23 of 2018 from Etah to Mathura, directing transmission of records. The appeal is allowed; the High Court's order is set aside; the parties bear their own costs; pending applications are disposed of. The decision aligns with the jurisprudence that convenience, safety, and economic realities govern transfer in matrimonial disputes.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 25Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice should demand transfer of the suit under Section 24 CPC
In matrimonial matters, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at
Economic soundness and social strata of spouses, and circumstances of livelihood influence transfer decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-wife contends that she has no independent income and resides with her parents in Mathura; traveling to Etah to prosecute the husband’s suit would cause substantial hardship and safety concerns. Given her economic and emotional dependence, transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 from Etah to Mathura is just and proper to ensure effective participation in the proceedings. She asserts threats by the respondent and his brother, though denied by the respondent. The High Court’s rejection of the transfer petition is challenged before the Supreme Court, urging that matrimonial transfers must prioritize the wife’s convenience and ends of justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents opposed the transfer; the suit was filed in Etah and should remain there. They contested the allegations of hardship, pointing to the need for the case to proceed in the forum chosen by the petitioners. They argued that the High Court’s assessment should not be reversed absent compelling reasons, though the record in this judgment indicates the Court ultimately accepted the broader principle that ends of justice and marital transfer considerations may warrant transfer.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha	Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022	Positive	Cited to articulate the cardinal principle under Section 24 CPC in matrimonial matters, emphasizing ends of justice and the wife’s convenience in transfer decisions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ruchi Rawat v. Principal Judge, Family Court Etah & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1148 [2022] 6 S.C.R. A ## RUCHI RAWAT v. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT ETAH & ANR. (Civil Appeal No(s). 5218 of 2022) B AUGUST 05, 2022 ## **[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]** _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s. 25 – Transfer of matters – Power of – Held: In matrimonial matters generally, it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering the transfer_ C _– On facts, appellant-wife having no source of income, was residing with her parents in Mathura and was financially and emotionally dependent on them, and being a lady was not in a position to travel all the way from Mathura to Etah in order to prosecute the case filed by respondent no. 2-husband at Etah – Thus, it is just and_ D _proper to transfer the suit filed by respondent no.2 u/s. 13 Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh forthwith._ - _N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha_ **Civil** - E **Appeal No.4894 of 2022, disposed of on 18.07.2022 – referred to.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5218 of 2022. - From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2022 of the High Court - F of Judicature at Allahabad in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 517 of 2018. Kartikeya Bhargava, Adv. for the Appellant. - Vaibhav Mishra, Akansh Bansal, Parmanand Gaur, Advs. for the - G Respondents. The following Order of the Court was passed: ## **O R D E R** 1. Leave granted. H 1148 RUCHI RAWAT v. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT ETAH 1149 & ANR. 2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 31.03.2022 in A Transfer Application (Civil) No.517 of 2018 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has rejected the petition filed by the appellantwife seeking transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 filed by her husband (respondent No.2 herein) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, B Uttar Pradesh. 3. Respondent No.2 had filed Original Suit No.23 of 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant at Etah. The appellant had also filed certain cases against the respondent no.2 at different courts in Mathura and the respondent no.2 had also filed an FIR against the appellant at Etah. The case put forth by the appellant before the High Court is that she being a lady is not in a position to travel all the way from Mathura to Etah in order to prosecute the case filed by the respondent no. 2 at Etah. It is further contended that the appellant has no source of income and she is residing with her parents in Mathura and she is financially and emotionally dependent on them and that she is surviving on the mercy of her parents. It is also alleged that she was threatened by the respondent no.2 and his brother while she was returning from Etah to Mathura after appearing before the Court on 19.02.2018. No doubt, the said allegation was denied by the respondent no.2. 4. It is well-settled that in matrimonial matters generally, it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering the transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022, disposed of on 18.07.2022), it was held as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. 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, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, C D E F G H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 6 S.C.R. A generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is just and proper to transfer the case filed by respondent no.2 from Etah to Mathura. B 6. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court impugned herein is set aside. We direct the transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh forthwith. The Principal Judge, Family, Court, Etah, shall send C the case record to the transferee court promptly and without any delay. 7. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. D Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed. E F G H