Delhi High Court
Ridhima Juneja vs Deven Juneja on 13 January, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ T.R.P.(C) No. 88/2013
% 13th January, 2014
RIDHIMA JUNEJA ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Naina Dubey and Mr. Narendra
Goyal, Advocates.
VERSUS
DEVEN JUNEJA ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 24 CPC by the wife to
transfer the petition filed by the respondent-husband for divorce in the
Rohini District Courts to Saket District Courts where the petition filed by the
petitioner-wife under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending disposal.
2. On 19.11.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed the
following order:-
"The learned counsel for appellant seeks time to obtain
instructions as to whether the petitioner would be willing to have two
matters, which are stated to be pending in Saket Courts, transferred to
Rohini Court where the divorce petition is pending. This suggestion
T.P.88/2013 Page 1 of 5
has been made by the court on account of the fact that the petitioner
has shown his residential address as that of Ashok Vihar which is
nearer to Rohini courts in comparison to Saket courts.
List on 13.01.2014."
3. Today, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that she
has taken instructions in terms of the above order dated 19.11.2013 and that
petitioner is not ready to get her petition transferred from the Saket courts to
the Rohini courts. It is claimed that the Saket courts are more convenient to
the petitioner and not the District Courts Rohini. It is claimed that petitioner
resides not only at the address of Ashok Vihar as given in the litigations, but
also at Lajpat Nagar where her parents are staying and that the son of the
petitioner is studying in Modern School which is situated in Central Delhi
and therefore Saket courts are convenient. In fact, a request is orally made
that the courts at Patiala House are most ideal courts and that both the
petitions of the petitioner and the respondent should be transferred to Patiala
House courts.
4. In support of the arguments which are urged on behalf of the
petitioner, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the
case of Ms. Shakuntala Modi Vs. Om Prakash Bharuka Air 1991 SC 1104
and of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Meera Dhingra
Vs. Deepak Kapoor & Ors. 2009 (109) DRJ 557.
T.P.88/2013 Page 2 of 5
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that it is the
convenience of the wife which has to be seen and which is regularly seen by
the courts and since as per the wife the courts at Saket are most convenient,
therefore, the divorce petition of the husband be transferred to the courts at
Saket where the petition filed by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act
is pending.
6. I have already reproduced the order dated 19.11.2013 above
and which shows that the courts at Rohini are in fact more closer to the
residence of the petitioner which is situated at Ashok Vihar and not the
courts at Saket. I cannot agree with the arguments of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that only the convenience of the wife has to be
seen because no doubt that law does give importance to the convenience of
the wife for transferring of a petition, however, convenience has to be real
and actual convenience based on actual facts and not a mental thing without
foundational facts. Convenience has to be co-related to actual and real facts
and the facts in this case show that the courts at Saket are at a much more
distance from the residence of the petitioner at Ashok Vihar than the courts
at Rohini. There is therefore no valid factual basis for the petitioner of her
argument of convenience and especially because the alleged factum of the
petitioner also living at her parent‟s address which is now argued orally
T.P.88/2013 Page 3 of 5
before me is not found to be averred in the petition in this Court. It is further
to be noted that it is not as if that the petitioner has to go for many times in a
month to the courts at Rohini, and the dates in the Rohini courts, and for that
matter even in the Saket Courts, would possibly be not more than once in
one or two months. In such circumstances, simply because petitioner finds it
„convenient‟, cases cannot be transferred either to the Saket courts or to the
Patiala House courts as is prayed for by the petitioner.
7. Also, courts cannot transfer cases simply on the basis of
convenience at the Patiala House Courts which has no territorial jurisdiction
qua any of the pending cases, because, if such a prayer is accepted then
simply on the convenience of the parties cases would be transferred from
one District Court to another District Court which has no jurisdiction though
there is no commonality of the issues or the parties in the cases and that that
courts are chosen in convenience and not the legal requirement of territorial
jurisdiction.
8. In fact, in my opinion, the order dated 19.11.2013 which was
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court was to test the bonafides of
the petitioner with respect to actual facts and the negation of the petitioner to
the offer for transfer of all the cases to Rohini courts shows that bonafides
T.P.88/2013 Page 4 of 5
are lacking on behalf of the petitioner to maintain this petition under Section
24 CPC.
9. The judgments which have been cited on behalf of the
petitioner do not apply inasmuch as whereas the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court in the case of Meera Dhingra (supra) deals with
the issue of cases being required to be heard together where issues are
identical so that there is no conflicting judgments of different courts on the
same issues, and, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ms.
Shakuntala Modi (supra) is distinguishable on facts because in that case it
was not that the wife was praying for transfer of the cases to a court which
was more distant from a residence than the place where the case which is
sought to be transferred was pending.
10. In the facts of the present case I do not think any case is made
out for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC, and which exercise of
jurisdiction as per facts of cases, is discretionary.
11. The petition is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
JANUARY 13, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
