Rajasthan HC rejects Bail to REET Paper Leak Accused Ram Kripal Meena
Allahabad HC Reserves Verdict on Muslim Parties' Plea Against Varanasi Court Order
Jharkhand HC Announces 55 Assistant Positions in Ranchi; Online Applications Now Open!
Sister-in-Law's Frequent Visits Insufficient to Establish Residence in DV Case : Bombay HC
P&H HC Grants Interim Bail to Eight-Month Pregnant Woman Accused in Murder Case, Citing Health Risks to Mother and Unborn Child
Kerala HC Denies 'Non-Creamy Layer' Certification Plea, Citing Ineligibility Based on Hereditary Occupation Criteria
ED Shifts Sameer Wankhede's Money Laundering Case to Delhi, Informs Bombay HC
J& H HC Emphasizes Due Process, Slams Overuse of Preventive Detention under PSA
Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Journalist Abhijit Majumder Over Periyar Remarks
Calcutta HC Takes Suo Motu Action on Alleged Sexual Assault and Land Transfer in Sandeshkhali
Convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes is paramount: CJI UU Lalit

Convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes is paramount: CJI UU Lalit

While hearing a transfer petition concerning a matrimonial dispute on Thursday, CJI UU Lalit stated orally that the convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes is paramount according to the court's established jurisprudence. As a result, if a wife required a transfer for her own convenience, she would be granted one. According to CJI Lalit, Justice Ruma Pal is the only judge in the court who has refused transfer petitions in such cases.

CJI Lalit remarked–

"I quite see the forceful submission made by you. Unfortunately, the ethos which has developed in this court is the convenience of the wife is paramount. We see that in today's time you cannot say that female is the weaker section and say that because they need protection they need a companion to travel. But at the same time, this has been the standard practice. Therefore, we will adopt that." "I have only seen one judge in this court who refused transfer petitions on this ground and that has been Justice Ruma Pal."

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the wife in the case was requesting for transfer from Pune to Patiala solely on the ground that she was a woman. The counsel submitted–

"She is a highly educated woman, she is perfectly fit and fine. She is a Ph.D. holder. Why does she need someone to accompany her to Pune?"

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy