SC: “Few Facebook Pictures With Bar Association Not Enough To Show Bias”

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The Supreme Court heard the transfer petition filed by the wife in the case of Neetu Yadav vs Sachin Yadav. Having found no reason to not adhere to this petition, the court allowed the transfer.

Brief facts of the case

The divorce petition is pending before the Dwarka Court in New Delhi. The husband has filed it on the ground of cruelty. As per the fact disclosed through the petition, the couple had been married since 2008 in Indore. They have two children, a girl and a boy aged eleven and eight. They resided in Indore till July 2020 and recently moved to New Delhi due to the transfer of the husband. He works as a Vigilance Officer in the Airport Authority of India.

Arguments

The petitioner in this travel petition has argued that she cannot travel a distance of eight hundred kilometres to attend the hearing of the case in New Delhi. This is because she, along with the two children, is residing with her parents in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The three of them are entirely dependent on her old and ailing parents.

The respondent files a counter-affidavit contending that the wife is a postgraduate. Her entire family is associated with the judicial structure of Madhya Pradesh. Further, the petitioner’s mother is a retired senior administrative position holder from the district judiciary. She has good family relations with the judicial officers who work in the District Judiciary. Additionally, she is also associated with the Unionized Cadre of District Court and their Cooperative Society.

Due to the influence, asserted by the petitioner’s mother, they managed to have the first notice of the divorce petition returned unserved. The petitioner’s elder brother is also a member of the District Bar Association and has been practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Subordinate Court for more than 12 years. He is friendly with all the judicial officers of the District Court. Her younger brother is working in the Information Technology Department in the Indore bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 

Due to these reasons, the respondent contends that he will not be able to get a fair and free hearing in Madhya Pradesh. Further, he says that the petitioner is capable of travelling alone to Delhi, and he is prepared to bear the cost of her travel.

Court’s Observations

The Courts observe that the only reason why this Divorce petition has been filed in Dwarka is that the respondent got posted here in New Delhi and that the couple last resided together in New Delhi.

Further, the court observed that this transfer is contested on the grounds of the enormous influence that the petitioner’s mother and brothers exert in the judiciary of the State. 

Looking into the claim of the respondent they examine the few screenshots and pictures of the petitioner’s brother’s Facebook page attached by the respondent. The court states that these printouts of the Facebook pages contain nothing other than the photographs of the petitioner’s brother with comments revolving around some joyous occasions.

The pictures show the petitioner’s brother in the cricket tournament. It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of the district bar association. It cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner’s brother is very influential with the local judiciary.

The pictures are of a few persons who had participated in the cricket competition conducted by the Indore Bar Association. It is not appropriate to conclude that the respondent will not receive fair treatment at the hands of the Family Court.

Court’s Order

The single-judge bench allowed the divorce petition pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court in Dwarka to be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -