In a recent judgment, the court delves into the complexities of a transfer request in a divorce petition. The case involves allegations of family influence on the judiciary, raising concerns about bias and fair treatment. The court’s legal analysis scrutinizes the evidence presented, focusing on the relevance of social media posts and familial connections to the legal system. Stay tuned to unravel the court’s insightful deliberation on this intriguing legal matter.
Facts
- Two children, a girl and a boy, were born in the wedlock.
- The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 21.02.2008 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
- The respondent-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in H.M.A case No.3200 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
- The wife seeks transfer of the petition to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
- Her primary ground for transfer is that she and her two children are entirely dependent on her old and ailing parents.
- She states that it would be impossible for her to travel the 800 km distance to attend the hearing of the case in New Delhi.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Alleged Emission Cheating Scandal
Arguments
- Petitioner is a Post Graduate with influential family ties to the judicial structure of Madhya Pradesh.
- Petitioner’s mother has retired from a senior administrative position in the District judiciary and has good relations with judicial officers.
- Petitioner’s family is associated with the ‘Unionised Cadre of District Court and their Cooperative Societies’.
- Petitioner’s family is well connected in the legal community, with the petitioner’s brother being a distinguished lawyer practicing in High Court and Subordinate Courts.
- Petitioner’s brother has friendly relationships with judicial officers, including the President of the District Bar Association.
- Petitioner’s brother is politically connected and has ties to a retired judicial officer who is a sitting member of Parliament.
- Petitioner’s family’s influence was evident in managing to have the first notice in the divorce petition returned unserved.
- Petitioner’s younger brother works in the Information Technology Department of the High Court.
- Respondent expresses concerns about receiving fair treatment in court due to petitioner’s family connections.
- Respondent acknowledges petitioner’s ability to travel to Delhi alone and offers to bear travel expenses.
- Petitioner is currently staying with her parents and is not gainfully employed.
- Both children are with the petitioner, requiring her to travel about 800 kms for hearings.
- Respondent works as a Vigilance Officer in the Airport Authority of India and is currently posted in Delhi.
- Marriage was solemnized in Indore, as per the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent.
Also Read: Authority of University Syndicate in Affiliation Matters
Analysis
- Respondent contests transfer request based on petitioner’s family’s alleged influence.
- Respondent provides Facebook printouts as evidence of alleged influence.
- Printouts show photos from public events, comments on joyous occasions, and greetings to ex-President of Bar Association.
- Court does not see how these photos indicate influence over judiciary.
- Event attended by judicial officers and advocates was open to all lawyers of the District Bar.
- Having a popular Facebook page does not prove influence over judiciary.
- Court is not convinced of any real likelihood of bias based on evidence presented.
- One of the photographs contains images of individuals who participated in a cricket competition held by the Indore Bar Association.
- This does not justify the conclusion that the respondent will not receive fair treatment in the Family Court.
Also Read: Court’s Legal Analysis: Stay on Trial Lifted and Trial Ordered to Proceed Expeditiously
Decision
- Divorce Petition H.M.A. No.3200 of 2019 titled as \
- Sachin Yadav Vs. Neetu Yadav\
- is transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi to Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
Case Title: NEETU YADAV Vs. SACHIN YADAV (2020 INSC 569)
Case Number: T.P.(C) No.-000455 / 2020
