Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said that an order for transfer of a case ought not to be granted merely on assumptions and apprehensions, as it rejected a plea by a wife to shift a child custody case from Chandigarh to Delhi.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta noted the husband's contention that their child was presently in the custody of the petitioner-wife and he had been residing with her in Chandigarh; and, without caring for the interest of the child, the petitioner-wife had sought to have the proceedings transferred from a Court which is two km away from his (child’s) residence to a court which is 250 km away. 

The wife filed a plea seeking transfer of the case from the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh to the Family Court, West District, New Delhi or any other court of competent jurisdiction at New Delhi.

She filed the plea for transfer essentially based on the apprehension that since she had been serving on a transferable post and there was an imminent possibility of her transfer out of Panchkula, the proceedings may be transferred to the Courts at New Delhi where matrimonial proceedings between the parties are pending.

"Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that no order for transfer ought to be passed on mere assumptions and apprehensions of the parties," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that at present, Panchkula remained to be the place of office of the petitioner-wife and it was also not in dispute that Chandigarh was the place of her residence as well as that of the child. 

"The interest of the child being of paramount importance, at this stage, this Court finds no reason to grant the prayer for transfer," the bench said.

Court, thus, dismissed the transfer petition.

Case Title: PREETI VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR