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
Digitally signed by
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
15. Let the records of the case be transferred to the
concerned court, without delay.
16. The Transfer Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020