Summary
The husband filed for annulment before the Family Court at Vellore, where he lives and works. The wife, aged 21, unemployed, living with aged parents in Chennai and without accommodation at Vellore, sought transfer of that petition to Chennai, where her own petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance were pending. The Madras High Court refused. The Supreme Court allowed the transfer. Under Section 24 CPC the test is whether the ends of justice demand it; in matrimonial matters the courts weigh the spouses' economic and social circumstances and, given prevailing socio-economic conditions in India, generally the wife's convenience. Interdependent proceedings between the same parties pending in different courts should be tried together to avoid multiplicity and conflicting decisions, so the three cases were clubbed at Chennai.
Issues
- Whether the husband's annulment petition pending at Vellore should be transferred under Section 24 CPC to the Family Court at Chennai, where the wife resides and where her restitution and maintenance petitions are pending.
Provisions considered
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Transfer is ordered where the ends of justice demand it. In matrimonial cases the courts consider the economic position, social strata and circumstances of both spouses, and generally the wife's convenience. (¶¶ 6, 9, 11)
- Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Chennai was one of the interdependent proceedings justifying clubbing. (¶¶ 4, 5, 10)
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The wife's maintenance petition at Chennai was likewise clubbed with the annulment and restitution petitions. (¶¶ 4, 10, 12)
Held
- The cardinal principle under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer. In matrimonial matters the court considers the economic soundness, social strata, behaviour and circumstances of both spouses; given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm, it is generally the wife's convenience that must be looked at. (¶ 9)
- When two or more proceedings between the same parties raising common questions and interdependent decisions are pending in different courts, they should be tried together by the same judge to avoid multiplicity and conflict of decisions. (¶ 10)
- A 21-year-old wife without income, dependent on aged parents who cannot accompany her, cannot reasonably be made to travel alone from Chennai to Vellore; with her own two petitions pending at Chennai, the High Court was not justified in refusing transfer. (¶¶ 8, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order of 19.11.2020 set aside; F.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2020 transferred from the Family Court, Vellore to the jurisdictional Family Court at Chennai, and the three cases clubbed for a common order. Parties to bear their own costs.