Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RUCHI RAWAT versus PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT ETAH & ANR.

Decided
5 August 2022
Judges listed
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.K. MAHESHWARI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1148 · 2022 INSC 1314
Also cited as
  • 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2036 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 1148, margin G

2

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 31.03.2022 in Transfer Application (Civil) No.517 of 2018 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has rejected the petition filed by the appellantwife seeking transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 filed by her husband (respondent No.2 herein) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

p. 1149, margin A

3

Respondent No.2 had filed Original Suit No.23 of 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant at Etah. The appellant had also filed certain cases against the respondent no.2 at different courts in Mathura and the respondent no.2 had also filed an FIR against the appellant at Etah. The case put forth by the appellant before the High Court is that she being a lady is not in a position to travel all the way from Mathura to Etah in order to prosecute the case filed by the respondent no. 2 at Etah. It is further contended that the appellant has no source of income and she is residing with her parents in Mathura and she is financially and emotionally dependent on them and that she is surviving on the mercy of her parents. It is also alleged that she was threatened by the respondent no.2 and his brother while she was returning from Etah to Mathura after appearing before the Court on 19.02.2018. No doubt, the said allegation was denied by the respondent no.2.

p. 1149, margin B

4

It is well-settled that in matrimonial matters generally, it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering the transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022, disposed of on 18.07.2022), it was held as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

pp. 1149–1150, margin E

5

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is just and proper to transfer the case filed by respondent no.2 from Etah to Mathura.

p. 1150, margin A

6

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court impugned herein is set aside. We direct the transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh forthwith. The Principal Judge, Family, Court, Etah, shall send the case record to the transferee court promptly and without any delay.

p. 1150, margin B

7

The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

p. 1150, margin C

8

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

p. 1150, margin C