Neetu Yadav vs Sachin Yadav on 30 September, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Neetu Yadav vs Sachin Yadav on 30 September, 2020

Author: V. Ramasubramanian

Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian

                                                                                      1




                                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                              TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.455 OF 2020




                         NEETU YADAV                            ...PETITIONER(S)

                                                   Versus

                         SACHIN YADAV                          …RESPONDENT(S)



                                                 ORDER

1. The wife has come up with the above petition seeking

transfer of a divorce petition bearing H.M.A. No.3200 of

2019 titled as “Sachin Yadav Vs. Neetu Yadav” filed by the

respondent­husband on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, to the

Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya

Signature Not Verified
Pradesh.

Digitally signed by
Madhu Bala
Date: 2020.09.30
17:18:11 IST

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

Reason:

2

3. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was

solemnized on 21.02.2008 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Two

children, a girl and a boy, were born in the wedlock. While

the girl is now aged about 11 years, the boy is aged about 8

years.

4. Admittedly, the respondent­husband filed a petition for

dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in H.M.A

case No.3200 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. The

wife seeks transfer of the said petition to the Court of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh

primarily on the ground that she and her two children are

entirely dependent on her old and ailing parents and that it

would be impossible for her to travel a distance of 800 kms.

to attend to the hearing of the case in New Delhi.

5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending

inter alia that the petitioner is a Post Graduate; that the

entire family of the petitioner is “influentially associated with

the judicial structure of Madhya Pradesh”; that the
3

petitioner’s mother retired from a senior Administrative

position from the District judiciary; that the petitioner’s

mother has very good family relations with the judicial

officers who worked in the district; that the petitioner’s

mother is still closely associated with the “Unionised Cadre

of District Court and their Cooperative Societies”; that several

officials of the Indore Court used to visit her home for each

and every small function in their family; that due to the

managerial skill of the petitioner’s mother and her influence,

the petitioner managed to have the first notice in the divorce

petition returned unserved; that the petitioner’s brother is a

distinguished lawyer practising in the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh and the Subordinate Courts for more than twelve

years; that the petitioner’s brother has friendly relationship

with the judicial officers of the District Court, as can be

evident from his Facebook page; that the petitioner’s brother

is an associate of one Mr. Sunil Choudhary who was the

President of the District Bar Association, Indore: that he is

politically well connected and has connection with the
4

sitting member of the Parliament who was also a Judicial

Officer (retired); that the petitioner’s brother is an active

member of the Indore Bar Association and is a close friend

of many leaders of the Bar; that the petitioner’s younger

brother is working in the Information Technology

Department, Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh and that, therefore, it is not possible for the

respondent to get justice through free and fair hearing. The

respondent­husband has stated that the petitioner is

capable of travelling alone to Delhi and that he is also

prepared to bear the expenses of her travel.

6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

7. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner

is gainfully employed. The claim of the petitioner that she is

now staying with her parents is not disputed by the

respondent. That both the children are staying with the

petitioner is also not disputed. The elder child is a girl aged

about 11 years and whenever the case is fixed for hearing,

the petitioner has to travel about 800 kms.
5

8. The respondent is working as Vigilance Officer in the

Airport Authority of India. He is currently posted in Delhi.

The fact that the marriage was solemnized at Indore is borne

out by the pleadings in the Divorce Petition filed by the

respondent. As per the averments contained in the Divorce

Petition, the couple lived at Indore till July­2020. Thereafter

the couple lived in Delhi for some time.

9. The only reason why the respondent has chosen to file

the Divorce Petition at Dwarka is that he is now posted in

New Delhi and that the couple last resided together at New

Delhi.

10. Keeping the above mentioned admitted facts in mind, if

we look at the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is

seen that the request for transfer is contested mainly on the

ground that the petitioner’s mother is a retired employee of

the District Court and that the petitioner’s elder brother is a

practicing advocate and the younger brother is working in

the I.T. department of the Indore Bench of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court and that they wield enormous influence.
6

11. To prove his contention regarding the status of the

petitioner’s family and the influence that they allegedly have,

the respondent has filed print outs of a few pages from the

Facebook account of the petitioner’s brother. While one of

those print outs has photographs taken on the occasion of a

cricket tournament held under the aegis of Indore Bar

Association and another print out relates to the greetings

extended to the Ex­President of Indore Bar Association, the

print outs of all other Facebook pages contain nothing other

than the photographs of the petitioner’s brother with

comments revolving around some joyous occasions.

12. I do not know how the pictures taken on the occasion

of a cricket tournament conducted by a Bar Association and

witnessed by a few judicial officers can be an indication of

the influence exerted by the petitioner’s family on the entire

district judiciary, merely because the judicial officers and

Advocates have stood shoulder to shoulder on that occasion.

It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of

the District Bar. The fact that the petitioner’s brother who is
7

a lawyer, has a Facebook page and that the same has lot of

followers and that it attracts a lot of comments and likes

cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner’s brother

is very influential with the local judiciary.

13. I am not convinced that there is any real likelihood of

bias. Out of the seven print outs of the Facebook pages of

the petitioner’s brother, filed by respondent as Annexures

R/1, R/2 and R/3 (colly), only one contains the photographs

of a few persons who had participated in the cricket

competition conducted by Indore Bar Association. On the

basis of this, it is not appropriate to come to the conclusion

that the respondent will not receive a fair treatment at the

hands of the Family Court.

14. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to allow the transfer

petition. Accordingly, the Divorce Petition H.M.A. No.3200 of

2019 titled as “Sachin Yadav Vs. Neetu Yadav”, pending

before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West,

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi is transferred to the Court of the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
8

15. Let the records of the case be transferred to the

concerned court, without delay.

16. The Transfer Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

…..……………………….J.

(V. Ramasubramanian)

NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020



Source link