Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-wife, Neetu Yadav, filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of a divorce petition filed by her husband, Sachin Yadav, from the Family Court at Dwarka, New Delhi, to the Family Court at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The marriage was solemnized on 21.02.2008 at Indore, and two children were born, a girl aged about 11 years and a boy aged about 8 years. The husband filed H.M.A. No.3200 of 2019 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife contended that she was entirely dependent on her old and ailing parents, had no independent income, and it would be impossible for her to travel 800 km to attend hearings in Delhi. The husband opposed the transfer, alleging that the wife's family wielded enormous influence over the Indore judiciary, citing that her mother was a retired district court employee, her elder brother was a practicing lawyer, and her younger brother worked in the IT department of the High Court. He filed printouts from the wife's brother's Facebook page showing photographs with judicial officers at a cricket tournament and other events. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, found no real likelihood of bias based on the Facebook posts, as they depicted routine social interactions at bar association events. The Court emphasized the wife's hardship, noting she was unemployed, staying with her parents, and responsible for two young children. The Court allowed the transfer, directing that the divorce petition be transferred from Dwarka, New Delhi, to Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and that records be transferred without delay.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Transfer of Divorce Petition - Section 24 CPC - Convenience of Wife - The wife sought transfer of divorce petition from Delhi to Indore on ground of hardship as she was unemployed, staying with aged parents, and had to travel 800 km with two children. The husband opposed alleging wife's family had influence over Indore judiciary. The Court held that mere Facebook posts showing participation in bar association events do not establish likelihood of bias, and the wife's hardship outweighed the husband's convenience. Transfer allowed. (Paras 1-16) B) Evidence - Social Media Posts - Likelihood of Bias - The husband relied on Facebook posts of wife's brother showing photographs with judicial officers at a cricket tournament and other events. The Court held that such posts do not indicate influence over the entire district judiciary, as the event was open to all lawyers and the posts were routine. No real likelihood of bias was established. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a divorce petition filed by the husband in Delhi should be transferred to Indore on the ground of the wife's hardship and alleged influence of her family over the Indore judiciary.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, directing that H.M.A. No.3200 of 2019 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi be transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Records to be transferred without delay.
Law Points
- Transfer of divorce petition
- convenience of wife
- likelihood of bias
- influence of family members
- Facebook posts as evidence of bias
