Holding

The ex‑parte divorce decree is set aside and the case transferred to the District Court, Ghaziabad, because the Family Court's interim order was inadequate, denying the wife a fair opportunity to be heard.

Summary

Anita Laxmi Narayan Singh married Laxmi Narain Singh in 1987. The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Bombay. The wife, residing in Ghaziabad, had to travel long distances to defend herself and applied for interim maintenance and travel expenses. The Supreme Court directed the Family Court to require the husband to deposit travel and stay expenses, but the Family Court awarded only a meager amount, citing the wife’s employment, which prevented her from attending further hearings, leading to an ex‑parte divorce decree in favour of the husband. The wife appealed, contending denial of justice. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court’s order was insufficient and biased, set aside the ex‑parte decree, and ordered transfer of the proceedings to the District Court, Ghaziabad, with the husband liable for costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Family Court's interim order on maintenance and expenses complied with the Supreme Court's direction and ensured a fair hearing.
Whether an ex‑parte divorce decree is valid when the wife was unable to attend due to lack of travel and stay expenses.
Whether the divorce proceedings should be transferred from the Family Court, Bombay to the District Court, Ghaziabad.
Whether the husband is liable to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the wife for attending the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

divorceHindu Marriage Actinterim maintenanceex‑parte decreetransfer of proceedingsdenial of justicetravel expensesfamily courtspecial leave petition

Judgment

A ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH
v. ~~-'
I
LAXMI NARAIN SINGH

MARCH 24, 1992

B
[M: N. VENKATACHALIAH, A. M. AHMADI AND B. P. JEEVAN
REDDY, JJ.]

Hind'u Marriage Act, 1955 : Section 13-Divorce-f'etition by husband
at Bombay-Wife required to travel a long distance to defend proceed-
c ings-Transfer petition by wife-Supreme Court directing sufficient expenses ,..._
for wife's stay and travel expenses-Grant of meagre amount of wife by Family A
Court-Consequent inability of wife to attend proceedings-Ex~parte divorce
decree in favour of husband-Held grant of meagre amount to wife resulted
in denial of justice-Ex-parte decree of divorce set aside.
D
The respondent was married to appellant at Ghaziabad. He tiled a
Divorce Petition at Bombay and the appellant-wife filed applications for
maintenance and expenses of the divorce proceedings. Subsequently she
filed a Transfer Petition in this Court for transferring the case from
Bombay to Ghaziabad which was disposed by this Ccurt directing that (i)
E the respondent-husband would pay Rs.2500 for wife's next visit to Bombay;
and (ii) the Family Court wouid insist on the husband depositing the to
and f'ro fare for the wife and her companion and also an amount sufficient 4--
for their stay in BQmbay on each visit. The Family Court dismissed the
wife's application for interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings on
F the ground that she was gainfully employed but awarded Rs. 700 as
expenses and further directed that she will be paid an additional amount
of Rs. 150 per day in case of her stay for more than one day at Bombay.
Against this order the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition in this
Court. Since she was held up for attending to her petition in this Court ;t·
the Family Court granted an ex-parte decree of divorce to the husband.
G She filed a petition in this Court contending that she had been con-
demoed unheard by the Family Court as she could not attend the Court
on account of her inability to meet the expenses for travel and residence
in Bombay.

~-
H Allowing the appeal, this Court,
316
ANITA v. L.N. SINGH 317

HELD : 1. While disposing the appellant's Transfer Petition this A
Court had clearly directed that the Family Court will insist on the husband
not only depositing the to and fro travel expenses for the wife and her
companion but also an amount sufficient for their stay in Bombay on each
visit. But the Family Court has been far from just to the wife who was
required to travel a long distance to defend herself. Nothing has been
allowed by way of transport charges and lodging and boarding charges
B
,+ even if she has not to stay for an additional day in Bombay. [320D-F]

2. The interim order passed by the Family Court is for reasons best
known to it, highly biased. This is more so because this Court's order
granting expenses to visit Bombay provided sufficient guideline for deter- C
mining the quantum of expenses to be awarded. Besides the Family Court
has not awarded any amount to meet the cost of the proceedings on the
specious plea that the appellant is gainfully employed. To say the least the
order is far from satisfactory and has resulted in gross denial of justice.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside. [321A-C]
D
3. As the interim ordel' made it impossible for the wife to contest the
divorce petition in the Family Court and facilitated an ex-parte divorce
decree in favour of the husband, in the extraordinary and peculiar cir-
cumstances of this case, the ex-parte divorce decree is set aside. [321C-D]
E
4. Interest of justice requires transfer of the proceedings from the
- ~ Family Court, Bombay to the District Court, Ghaziabad. The restored
divorce proceedings will stand transferred from Family Court Bombay to
the District Court, Ghaziabad. [321E-F]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No. 4 of F
1991 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 521 of 1990.

?~ (Petition under Section 25 C.P.C.)

WITH
G
C.A. No. 1119 of 1992

WITH

C.A. No. 1118 of 1992 H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A Mrs. Sureshtha Bagga for the Appellant.

Vimal Dave for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B AHMADI, J. Delay condoned. Special leave granted in both matters.
The facts leading to these cases, briefly stated, are that the appellant Anita
married respondent Laxmi Narain on November 1, 1987 at Ghaziabad
according to Hindu rites. It is the appellant's case that on the very next day
at the Bidai ceremony the relatives of her husband raised a dispute
regarding inadequacy of dowry amount. However, that dispute was settled
c for the time being by respectable persons but Anita was not happy at her
husband's home on account of ill-treatment meted out to her by the
respondent. Ultimately on March 11, 1988 she left for her father's house
in Ghaziabad and since then she has been living there.

D The respondent sent a notice through his Advocate dated November
16, 1988 and followed it up by filing a Divorce Petition under Section 13
of the Hindu Marriage Act in the City Civil Court at Bombay. On the
appellant being served with the notice of the divorce petition she went to
Bombay and entered an appearance and also filed an application for
maintenance pendente lite. Even thereafter she attended court on several
E adjournments but there was no progress in the matter. On October 3, 1989
the proceedings were transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Bombay, --/._-
and the appellant was informed about the same. The appellant filed a
complaint under Section 498A, IPC against the respondent at Ghaziabad
on December 13, 1989. The appellant paid several visits to Bombay to
F attend the divorce proceedings in the Family Court but the matter was only
adjourned from time to time. An effort was made by the Marriage Coun-
sellor of the Family Court to bring about a settlem~nt on May 22, 1990 but
in vain. Tired of making long trips from Ghaziabad to Bombay the appel-
lant preferred a Transfer Petition in this Court for transferring the case
G from Bombay to Ghaziabad wherein notice was issued and the respondent
filed his counter. The Transfer Petition was ultimately disposed of by this
Court's order dated January 14, 1991 to the following effect :

"Since the matter is pending in the Family Court in which the
petitioner herself has also filed an application bearing No.
H 4091/89, we think it would be advisable to allow the Family
ANITA v. L.N. SINGH [AHMADI, J.] J19

-,-~-
Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The ends of justice A
~

would suffice if we direct that on each occasion the petitioner-
wife is required to attend the Family Court, the Family Court
will first insist on the husband depositing the to and fro fare
for the petitioner and a companion and also an amount suffi-
dent for their stay in Bombay on each visit. For the next visit
to Bombay we direct the husband to deposit a sum of Rs. 2500
B
in the Family Court under notice to the petitioner. We also
hope that the Family Court will appreciate the difficulty 9f the
petitioner-wife and try to dispose of the matter as early as
possible. With these observations we dispose of the matter and
)... vacate the stay but with liberty to the petitioner-wife to move c
this Court in case of difficulty."

It was only after this order was passed that the respondent filed his
reply to the appellant's application for grant of interim maintenance and
cost of proceedings. As her first application was not taken up for hearing
she filed another application for payment of expenses, etc. The Family
D
Court dismissed her application for interim maintenance and expenses of
proceedings on the ground that she was gainfully employed. The only
amount allowed by the Family Court was Rs. 700 towards second class
sleeper Railway fare for herself and her companion. The Family Court also
observed that if she and her companion are required to stay in Bombay E
the respondent will pay Rs. 150 for additional days. After this order dated
> April 20, 1991 the appellant was directed to file her statement by May 20,
1991.

Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Court F
seeking special leave to appeal against the said order. She also filed I.A.

... ~
No. 4 of 1991 in Transfer Petition No. 521/90 in view of the liberty reserved
unto her by this Court's order dated January 14, 1991. In the meantime the
divorce proceedings were listed before the Family Court on September 23,
1991 and· as the appellant was held up for attending to her special leave
petition against the interim order she sought an adjournment by a letter G
sent through courier service on September 21, 1991. However that being a
holiday the Family Court did not hold its sitting but took up the matter on
the next day. Since the letter written by the appellant had reached the
-~ Family Court, the Family Court adjourned the matter to October 7, 1991
with a direction to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court or else the matter H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A would proceed. Intimation about the said order was sent to the appellant
at her old address even though her new address was communicated to the
Family Court earlier. The proceedings were adjourned from October 7,
1991 to October 11, 1991 and thereafter to October 19, 1991 without
intimation to the appellant. The evidence was recorded on October 19,
1991 and the judgment was pronounced on October 21, 1991 allowing the
B divorce petition and granting a decree for divorce exparte. The appellant
has preferred a special leave petition against the said order granting
divorce on the plea that she had been condemned unheard by the Family
Court as she could not attend the court on account of her inability to meet
the expenses for travel and residence in Bombay. These are the circumstan-
c ces in which the aforesaid proceedings have· arisen before this Court.

From the facts set out above it is evident that this court did not order
transfer of the case because it felt that the Family Court, Bombay, which
was seized of the matter would be able to resolve the controversy at an
D early date. This Court had clearly directed that the Family Court will insist
on the husband not only depositing the to and fro travel expenses for the
wife and her companion but also an amount stifficient for their stay in
Bombay on each visit. Even according to the Family Court the second class
fare from Bombay Central to Delhi by mail train and from Delhi to
Ghaziabad comes to Rs. 326 + Rs. 12 i.e. Rs. 338 for two persons. T-he
E Family Court, therefore, awarded Rs. 700 by way of expenses and added
that she will be paid an additional amount of Rs. 150 per day if she has to
stay for more than one day. To say the least, the Family Court has been ~-
far from just to the wife who was required to travel a long distance from
Ghaziabad to Bombay Central to defend herself. Nothing has been allowed
F by way of transport charges and lodging and boarding charges even if she
has not to stay for an additional day in Bombay. Where does the Family
Court expect her to put up in Bombay after a 24 hour journey ? If the case
is adjourned it seems the Family Court expects her to leave on the same
day post-haste for Delhi. Even on reaching Bombay after a tiring journey
G of 24 hours she is not provided any expense by way of hotel charges, lodge
and board, for the day. Does the Family Court expect her to rush to Court
from the station and rush back to station from the Court on the proceed-
ings being adjourned for the day? Even the meagre payment of Rs. 150 is
made available to her if she has to stay in Bombay for an additional day.
The Family Court, with respect, also did not realise that it would be
H impossible to find a modest living place for two for Rs. 150 per day in a
ANITA v. L.N. SINGR[AHMADI, J.J 321
\

costly city like Bombay, leave aside the expense for meals, etc. It seems to A
us that the interim order passed by the Family Court is, for reasons best
known to it, highly biased. This is more so because it had before it this
Court's order granting Rs. 2500 by way of expenses to visit Bombay which
provided sufficient guideline for determining the quantum of expenses to
be awarded. Besides, the Family Court has not awarded any amount to
meet the cost of the proceedings on the specious plea that she is gainfully B
employed. To say the least the order is far from satisfactory and has
resulted in gross denial of justice. The order made it impossible for the
wife to meet the expenses of frequent visits to Bombay and facilitated an
ex-parte divorce decree in favour of the husband.

In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order
c
dated 20th April, 1991 passed in MJ. Petition No. 146of1989. As the said
order of 20th April, 1991 made it impossible for the wife to contest the
divorce petition in the Family Court and facilitated an ex-parte divorce
decree in favour of the husband, in the extraordinary and peculiar cir-
cumstances of this case, we allow the appeal and set aside the .ex-parte D
divorce decree.

Having regard to the fact that the husband is a high ranking railway
officer who would be entitled to travel facilities, we think in the backdrop
of events that have taken place, it would be expedient in the interest of
· justice to transfer the proceedings from the Family Court, Bombay, to the E
District Court, Ghaziabad, for disposal in accordance with law, The res-
tored divorce proceedings will stand transferred to the District Court,
Ghaziabad. The Family Court, Bombay will forthwith transmit the record
and proceedings, inclusive of pending interim applications including the
one in which the impugned order of 20th April, 1991 came to be passed, F
to the District Court, Ghaziabad, for disposal in accordance with law. The
respondent-husband will pay the cost of the present three proceedings
which we quantify at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only).

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.