2017 (3) TMI 1900 - SC - Indian Laws

Transfer petition - doctrine of forum non conveniens - domestic violence case filed at Hyderabad, while in-law's house is at Jabalpur - whether an order can be passed so as to provide a better alternative to each individual being required to move this Court? - HELD THAT - Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient and there is any other forum which is considered to be more convenient for the interest of all the parties at the ends of justice. Though these observations have been made in the context of granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the Plaintiff is the dominus litis but if more than one court has jurisdiction, court can determine which is the convenient forum and lay down conditions in the interest of justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be availed. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country video conferencing is now available, In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilized and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court's jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of video conference, proceedings may be conducted on video conferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. Thus, it is directed that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the Defendants/Respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of Defendant/Respondent does not result in denial of justice - the transfer petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
2. Hardship faced by the wife in contesting proceedings.
3. Mechanism to reduce the burden of transfer petitions on the Supreme Court.
4. Use of technology in judicial proceedings.
5. Legal aid and access to justice.

Detailed Analysis:

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings:
The petitioner-wife sought the transfer of a divorce case filed by the respondent-husband from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The wife cited her inability to undertake long journeys and the need to care for her minor daughter as reasons for the transfer.

Hardship Faced by the Wife:
The wife alleged mental and physical torture at her in-laws' house, leading to a spinal cord injury. She left the matrimonial home in 2012 and filed a domestic violence case in Hyderabad. The Supreme Court noted that the wife faced "acute hardship" in contesting the proceedings at Jabalpur due to her residence in Hyderabad and the responsibility of caring for her minor daughter.

Mechanism to Reduce the Burden of Transfer Petitions:
The Court acknowledged the high volume of transfer petitions and the associated hardships for litigants. It considered whether a general order could be passed to alleviate this burden. The Court suggested that if a husband files matrimonial proceedings at a place where the wife does not reside, the court should entertain such petitions only if the husband deposits an appropriate amount to cover the wife's expenses. This approach aims to reduce the need for individual transfer petitions and expedite matrimonial matters.

Use of Technology in Judicial Proceedings:
The Court emphasized the potential of video conferencing to address the difficulties faced by parties in attending court proceedings at distant locations. It suggested that video conferencing facilities should be available in every district court and utilized for matrimonial cases where one party resides outside the court's jurisdiction. This would allow for the recording of evidence and conducting proceedings without requiring physical presence.

Legal Aid and Access to Justice:
The Court highlighted the importance of legal aid and suggested that district legal services authorities should maintain a panel of advocates to provide legal aid at a specified fee. This panel should be notified on the websites of the relevant legal services authorities to enhance access to justice. Additionally, the Court recommended that district courts have an email ID and a designated officer to respond to litigants' communications, especially those located outside the local jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed that in matrimonial or custody matters, courts should consider safeguards to ensure that summoning the defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. These safeguards include the availability of video conferencing, legal aid services, deposit of travel costs, and communication facilities. The Court allowed the transfer petition, directing the transfer of the divorce case from Jabalpur to Hyderabad and encouraged the use of mediation for an amicable settlement. The Court also instructed the registry to transmit the order to the concerned courts and all High Courts for appropriate action.