ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH versus LAXMI NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 316 · Decided: 24-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH 
v. 
~~-' 
LAXMI NARAIN SINGH 
I 
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 
c 
at Bombay-Wife required to travel a long distance to defend proceed-
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 
E 
Bombay to Ghaziabad which was disposed by this Ccurt directing that (i) 
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· 
G 
the Family Court granted an ex-parte decree of divorce to the husband. 
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 
,+ even if she has not to stay for an additional day in Bombay. [320D-F] 
B 
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] 
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] 
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] 
D 
E 
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. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Vimal Dave for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.