Dismissed

Seema Kaushal v. Dheeraj Kumar

Supreme Court10 Feb 20232023 INSC 1182023 INSC 118

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking transfer of a divorce application from Jaipur to Kurukshetra Haryana. The Court held that since both spouses reside in Jaipur and threats alleged in the petition were not sufficient to warrant relocation, transfer was not justified.

What did the court decide?

The transfer petition is dismissed and the parent proceeding remains pending before the Family Court, Jaipur.

What the court decided

Seema Kaushal versus Dheeraj Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Supreme Court (2023)

¶1

¶2

Non- Reportable

¶3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

¶4

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)No.1621 OF 2022

¶6

SEEMA KAUSHAL Petitioner

¶7

 VERSUS

¶8

DHEERAJ KUMAR Respondent

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Pankaj Mithal, J.

¶11

1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the

¶12

pleadings.

¶13

2. The petitioner – wife has filed this petition for

¶14

the transfer of Divorce Petition bearing Application
No.646 of 2022 titled as “Dheeraj Kumar Vs. Seema
Kaushal” pending before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur

¶15

Signature Not Verified Metropolis Jaipur, Rajasthan to the Court of Principal Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.02.10 16:53:00 IST

¶16

Reason: Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

¶17

¶18

3. The petitioner and the respondent – husband were
married on 13.11.2014 and their marriage was registered
before the Marriage Registrar, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh. They have a son, who is alleged to be living
with his maternal parents at Kurukshetra. The
petitioner and the respondent both are in Government
service and are posted at Jaipur. The petitioner is
currently posted as Deputy Director in National Health
Mission, Jaipur and a Class-I, Officer, in Rajasthan
Civil Services. She had remained posted in Rajasthan
since 2011.

¶19

4. The Transfer Petition has been preferred basically
on the ground that her father-in-law, who was Assistant
Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan, is a very
influential person in Jaipur and that at his behest,
threats have been extended to the petitioner, in respect
whereof, some complaints have been made by her to the
authorities. The son of the petitioner is living and
studying in Kurukshetra, Haryana, where he has initiated
proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
respondents. Therefore, it is just and proper to
transfer the case to Haryana.

¶20

¶21

5. The father-in-law of the petitioner was the

¶22

Assistant Superintendent of Police but has now retired.
There is no allegation whatsoever in the petition that
he is so influential even today so as to influence the
decision of the Family Court at Jaipur. The extension of
some threats as alleged may be a danger to her personal
security but that may not be sufficient or a good ground
for the transfer of the petition. The complaints, if

¶23

any, alleging such threats are all subsequent to the
filing of the divorce petition and may be for creating a
ground for seeking transfer of the divorce petition.

¶24

Even the initiation of the proceedings by the son at
Kurukshetra in Haryana are subsequent to the filing of
the divorce petition and appears to be an afterthought.

¶25

6. The petitioner has nowhere alleged that she is not
going to stay in Jaipur any further or that she is
likely to be transferred or going to live in
Kurukshetra, Haryana. Therefore, when both the parties
to the marriage/divorce petition are residing in Jaipur,
it is not just and proper to transfer the case outside

¶26

Rajasthan to a remote place like Kurukshetra in Haryana.
It will not be inconvenient to both of them as, while on

¶27

¶28

duty they will have to go to attend the proceedings to
such a long distance and return.

¶29

7. In the overall facts and circumstances, we do not deem it necessary to transfer this divorce application, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

¶31

disposed of accordingly.

¶32

…………………………………………………J.

¶33

 [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]

¶34

.…………………………………………….J.

¶35

 [PANKAJ MITHAL]

¶36

New Delhi;
10th February, 2023.

Seema Kaushal v. Dheeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Seema Kaushal v. Dheeraj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pancham Lal Pandey versus Neeraj Kumar Mishra

Mita India Pvt. Ltd. versus Mahendra Jain

Khora (Dead) through Legal Heirs versus Mohar Sai