ANITA LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH v. LAXMI NARAIN SINGH

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 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." B 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 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. D 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 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 G 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 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 ces in which the aforesaid proceedings have· arisen before this Court. B c E 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 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 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 impossible to find a modest living place for two for Rs. 150 per day in a F H ~- \ 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 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. c 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.