Legal Brief: ‘No remorse or sympathy towards wife’s hardships’; Bombay HC imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on husband for opposing wife’s plea to transfer divorce case.
Case Name: Sarita Rahul Sharma v. Rahul Udayraj Sharma; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3179
Court Name: High Court of Bombay
Date of Judgment: 03.10.2024
By: Aakanksha Bhatia
Facts:
The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) seeking the transfer of a Marriage Petition, filed by the Respondent- husband, from the Vasai Court to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Applicant resides in Mahim with her retired father, homemaker mother, two unmarried brothers, and her 15-month-old daughter. The daughter was born prematurely, requires constant medical care, and relies on her mother for support. Applicant faces significant difficulty traveling to Vasai, spending an average of 8 hours commuting. She must take her infant daughter with her, as her mother is unable to care for the child due to health issues. The travel is arduous, involving crowded trains and buses or expensive auto-rickshaws.
Applicant has an ongoing legal case against the Respondent and his family under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860, related to the return of her dowry. Applicant filed a petition for maintenance in the Family Court at Bandra due to financial constraints. Respondent owns three salons in Vasai and is financially well-off.
Issues:
- Whether the Applicant’s circumstances warrant the transfer of the Marriage Petition to a court more convenient for her.
- Whether the Respondent’s offer to bear the Applicant’s travel expenses mitigates the hardship she faces.
- Whether the principles established in relevant case law support the Applicant’s request for transfer.
Arguments Advanced:
- Applicant’s Arguments:
The travel to Vasai is extremely difficult and time-consuming, especially with a young child requiring constant care. Her financial situation and her daughter’s health make it impossible for her to manage the commute. The ongoing legal case against the Respondent adds to her burden and stress. Transferring the case to Bandra would not prejudice the Respondent, who is financially well-off.
- Respondent’s Arguments:
The Applicant has managed the journey previously. He is willing to bear the Applicant’s travel costs. He cited the case of “Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha”, where the Supreme Court rejected a transfer request because the opposing party agreed to pay travel expenses. He argued that inconvenience and lack of funds are insufficient grounds for transfer, citing Supriya v. Kamlesh.
Judgment:
The Court granted the Applicant’s request to transfer the Marriage Petition to the Family Court at Bandra. The Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the Respondent, payable to the Applicant within two weeks.
Legal Analysis:
The Court found the Respondent’s arguments insensitive and inhumane, considering the Applicant’s circumstances. The Court distinguished the case of Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha, noting that the facts were dissimilar and did not involve a matrimonial dispute with an infant child requiring care. The Court also distinguished the case of Supriya v. Kamlesh, where the husband’s medical ailment was a factor in rejecting the transfer. The Court applied the principles outlined in * N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha*, which emphasizes considering the economic and social circumstances of both parties in matrimonial transfer cases. The Court prioritized the well-being of the child, recognizing the mother’s primary responsibility for her care. The Court condemned the Respondent’s lack of support for his wife and child. The Court’s decision to award costs reflects the hardship endured by the Applicant and the Respondent’s unreasonable opposition to the transfer.
Conclusion:
The Hon’ble Court’s decision demonstrates a strong emphasis on considering the unique circumstances of the parties in matrimonial disputes. The Hon’ble Court prioritized the well-being of the child and recognized the significant hardship faced by the Applicant due to the inconvenient location of the proceedings. The decision highlights the importance of applying relevant legal principles in a context-specific manner, ensuring a just and equitable outcome. The awarding of costs further emphasizes the Court’s disapproval of the Respondent’s conduct and serves as a deterrent against similar behaviour in future cases.