Holding

The Court held that while courts may employ safeguards like video‑conferencing, legal aid, and cost deposits to avoid denial of justice in matrimonial matters, the specific circumstances of this case justified transferring the proceedings to the jurisdiction where the wife resides.

Summary

The wife, residing in Hyderabad with her minor daughter, sought transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court of Jabalpur, citing hardship in traveling to the forum. The petition raised whether a transfer under Section 25 of the CPC was appropriate and whether alternative safeguards could obviate the need for transfer. The Court observed the growing number of transfer petitions and applied the doctrine of forum non conveniens, directing that courts may employ safeguards such as video‑conferencing, legal‑aid panels, cost deposits for travel, and electronic communication to avoid denial of justice. While these safeguards are to be used generally, the Court held that in the present case, pending for three years, the transfer to the Family Court, Hyderabad, was warranted. The order also issued directions for all courts to adopt such safeguards in matrimonial and custody matters.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 25 CPC is appropriate when the respondent resides outside the court's jurisdiction and the petitioner faces hardship.
Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be applied to matrimonial disputes.
What safeguards can be ordered to ensure justice without transferring the case, such as video conferencing, legal aid, and cost deposits.
Whether the husband can be directed to deposit travel expenses for the wife in such proceedings.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 25, s. Order XXV
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 19

Subjects

forum non convenienstransfer of proceedingsmatrimonial jurisdictionvideo conferencinglegal aidHindu Marriage ActSection 25 CPCaccess to justicedomestic violencechild custody

Judgment

[2017] 5 S.C.R. 513

KRISHNA VEN! NAGAM A
v.
HARISH NAGAM
(Transfer Petition (C) No. 1912 of2014)
MARCH 09, 2017 8
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Supreme Court - Directions - Transfer Petition - Alternative
to transfer of proceedings - Matrimonial matters and custody -
Defendants/respondents located outside the jurisdiction of the court C
where the proceedings are instituted - Held: The court, where
proceedings are instituted, may'examine incorporating safeguards
for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not
result in denial of justice - Order incorporating such safeguards
may be sent along with the summons which are: (i) availability of
video conferencing facility; (ii) availability of legal aid service; D
(iii) deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of
Or.XXV CPC; (iv) e-mail address/phone number, if any, at which
litigant from out station may communicate - Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 - Or.XXV, s.25 ~Administration of Justice - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13 and 19.
E
Constitution of India - Art.39-A - Ignorance ofparties about
availability of legal services - Held: Legal aid committee of every
district ought to make available selected panel of advocates whose
discipline and quality can be suitably regulated and who are ready
to provide legal aid at a specified fee - Such panels ought to be
F
notified on the websites of the legal service authorities.
Transfer Petition - Respondent-husband filed divorce petition
at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh - Petitioner- wife sought tramfer of
case from Family court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh to Family court,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - Held: In instant case, since matter
pending for about three years, prayer for transfer allowed - If G
parties seek mediation the transferee court may explore the
possibility of an amicable settlement through mediation - Transferee
court may conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witness
who are unable to appear in court by way of video conferencing.
H
513
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5 S.C.R.

A Disposing of the transfer petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctrine of forum non conve11iens can be
applied in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest of
justice. Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent
jurisdiction to stay proceedings at a forum which is considered
B not to be convenient and there is any other forum which is
considered to be more convenient for the interest of all the parties
at the ends of justice. However, transfer of proceedings is not
always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be
appropriate that available technology of video conferencing is
used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no
c place which is convenient to both the parties. [Paras 13, 14) (520-
G-H; 521-A; 522-B)
2. The advancement of technology ought to be utilized also
for service on parties or receiving communication from the
parties. Every district court must have at least one e-mail ID.
D Administrative instructions for directions can be issued to permit
the litigants to access the court, especially when litigant is located
outside the local jurisdiction of the Court. A designated officer/
manager of a district court may suitably respond to such e-mail in
the manner permitted as per the administrative instructions.
E Similarly, a manager/information officer in every district court may
be accessible on a notified telephone during notified hours as
per the instructions. These steps may, to some extent, take care
of the problems of the litigants. These suggestions may need
attention of the High Courts. [Para 16) (522-F-H; 523-A)

F 3. It is necessary to issue certain directions which may
provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings. It is
therefore directed that in matrimonial or custody matters or in
proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of
disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/
respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the
G court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it
is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for
ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result
in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be
sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be: (i)
H Availability of video conferencing facility; (ii) Availability of legal
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 515

aid service; (iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding A
in terms of Order :XXV CPC; (iv) E-mail address/phone number,
if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate. [Paras
17 ,18] [523-B-E]
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197; Mona
Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel (2000) 9 SCC 255; B
Lalita A. Ranga v. Ajay Champa/al Ranga (2000) 9 SCC
355; Deepa v. Anil Panicker (2000) 9 SCC 441;
Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi (2000)10 SCC 350;
Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002)
10 SCC 480; Nee/am Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia
(2004) 13 SCC 436; Soma Choudhury v. Gourab c
Choudhaury (2004) 13 SCC 462; Rajesh Rani v. Tej
Pal (2007) 15 SCC 597: (2008] 14 SCR 750; Vandana
Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (2008) 1l SCC 768;
Anju Ohri v. Varin@;' Ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556;
Premlata Singh v. Rita Singh (2005) 12 SCC 277; Gana D
Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad (2000) 10 SCC 277;
Modi Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S. G Cricket
Pte. Ltd. (2003) 4 sec 341 : [2003] 1 SCR 480;
Spiliada Maritime Corpn. v. Cansu/ex Ltd. (1986) 3 All
ER 843; Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
and anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254 : (2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 841; E
State of Maharashtra etc. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai etc.
(2003) 4 SCC 601 : (2003] 3 SCR 244; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu fodav
and anr. (2005) 3 SCC 284; Budhadev Karmaskar (./)
v. State of West Bengal (2011) 10 SCC 283 : [2011 J 10 F
SCR 577; Malthesh Gudda Pooja 1: S1,11e <?f Karna/aka
and ors. (2011) 15 sec 330 : 120111 11 SCR 870 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2006) 9 sec 197 referred to Para 7 G
c2000) 9 sec 255 referred to Para 7
(2000) 9 sec 355 referred to Parn 7
(2000) 9 sec 441 referred to Para 7
(2000)10 sec 350 referred to Para 7
c2002) 10 sec 480 referred to Para 7 H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 5. S.C.R.

A (2004) 13 sec 436 referred to Para 7
(2004) 13 sec 462 referred to Para 7
(2008) 14 SCR 750 referred to Para 7
(2008) 11 sec 768 referred to Para7
(2007) is sec 556 referred to Para7
B
(2005) 12 sec 211 referred to Para8
c2000) 10 sec 211 refened to Para8
(2003) 1 SCR 480 referred to Para 13
(1986) 3 All ER 843 referred to Para 13
c [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 841 referred to Para 14
(2003) 3 SCR 244 referred to Para 14
(2005) 3 sec 284 referred to Para 14.
(2011) 10 SCR 577 referred to Para 14
[2011) 11 SCR 870 referred to Para 14
D CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.
1912 of2014.
Under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. (A. C), Ms. Vanita Mehta, Ms. Rohini
Musa, Zafar, Guayat, Ms. Apoorva Tripathi, Abhishek Gupta, Ms.
E Akansha Kaul, Advs. for the Petitioner. '
Nitin Gaur, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. I. This transfer petition has been
F filed for transfer of Case No.l 79A/2013 u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (the Act) titled "Harish Nagam vs. Krishna Veni Nagam"
pending on the file ofll Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh to the Family Court Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2. Case of the petitioner-wife is that she was married to the
respondent-husband in the year 2008 at Kukatpally, Hyderabad. She
G was blessed with a girl child in 2009. While living in her in-law's house
at Jabalpur, she was ill-treated. She was subjected to mental and physical
torture. She suffered injury on her spinal cord. She left the matrimonial
home in 2012.
3. The respondent-husband filed application for restitution of
H conjugal rights which was later on got dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter,
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 517
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.]

a divorce petition has been filed at Jabalpur while the petitioner has filed A
a domestic violence case at Hyderabad. Since the petitioner-wife, along
with her minor daughter, is living with her parents, she cannot undertake
long journey and contest the proceedings at Jabalpur by neglecting her
minor child. She also apprehends threat to her security in attending
proceedings at Jabalpur.
8
4. On 7•h January, 2015, notice was issued and stay of proceedings
was granted. The matter has been pending in this Court for more than
two years.
5. On 9th January, 2017 when the matter came-up for hearing, the
following order was passed:
"This petition ts filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
c
Procedure seeking transfer of proceedings initiated by the
respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at
Jabalpur. According to the petitioner, who is the wife of the
respondent, she will face acute hardship in contesting the
proceedings at Jabalpur as· she is living at Hyderabad. The D
marriage took place at Hyderabad. The petitioner has to look
after her minor daughter who is living with her.
Undoubtedly under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
the petition of the present nature could be filed at the place
where the marriage is solemnized or the respondent, at the
E
. time of the presentation of the petition, resides or where the
parties to the marriage last resided together or where the wife
is residing on the date of the presentation of the petition, in
case she is the petitione; or in certain situations (as stipulated
in clause iv) where the petitioner resides.
This Court is flooded with petitions of this nature and having F
regard to th.e convenience of the wife transfer is normally
allowed. However, in the process tire litigants have to travel
to this Court and spend.on litigation. Question is whether this
can be avoided? ·
We are of the view that if orders are to be passed in every G
individual petition, this causes great hardship to the litigants
who have to come to this Court. Moreover in this process, the
matrimonial matters which are required to be dealt with
expeditiously are delayed.
In these circumstances, we are prima facie of the view that
we need to consider whether we could pass a general order to H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 5 S.C.R.

A the effect tllat in case wltere ltusband files matrinu~nial
proceedings at place wllere wife does not reside, tlte court
concerned should entertain such petition only on tlle condition
tltat tile husband makes appropriate deposit to bear tlle
expenses of tlle wife as may be determined by tlte Court. Tiie
Court may also ]lass orders from time to time for f11rtller
B
deposit to ensure tllat tlle wife is not handicapped to defend
tlle proceedings. In otller cases, tlle ll11sband may take
proceedings before tlle Court in whose jurisdiction the wife
resides which may lessen inconvenience to the parties and
avoid delay. Any otlter option to remedy the situation can also
c be considered.
However, before passing a final order, we consider it necessary
to hear learned Attorney General who may depute some law
officer to assist this Court.
List the matter on 31st January, 2017.
D We also request Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Senior Advocate to assist
this Court as amicus curiae. A set of papers may be furnished
to the amicus. "
(Emphasis added)
6. Thus, the question is whether an order can be passed so as to
E provide a better alternative to each individual being required to move
this Court.
7. We have already noted that large number of transfer petitions
of the present nature are being filed in this Court and are being
mechanically allowed. Similar observation was made by this Court more
than I 0 years ago in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das 1 " ••• On an average at
F
least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each
admission day." It has also been observed in a number of cases that in
absence of any male member being available to accompany the wife
who is party to matrimonial proceedings to adifferent place, it may
render it "expedient for ends of justice" to transfer proceedingsc.
G 1
(2006) 9 sec t97
2
Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel (2000) 9 SCC255; Lalita A. Ranga v. Ajay
Champalal Ranga (2000) 9 SCC 355; Decpa v, Anil Panicker (2000) 9 SCC 441;
Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi (2000) I0 SCC 350; Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar
Mukherjee (2002) l 0 SCC 480; Neel am Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia (2004) 13 SCC
436; Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury (2004) 13 SCC 462; Rajesh Rani v. Tej
Pal (2007) 15 SCC 597; Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (2008) 11 SCC 768;
H and Anju Ohri v. Varinder Ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556.
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 519
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

8. Of course in some cases, it was observed that instead of A
proceedings being transferred, the husband should pay travel, lodging
and boarding expenses of the wife and/or person accompanying for each
hearing3 • This trend has also been followed in other matrimonial disputes,
including guardianship dispute, etc. 4
9. Spirit behind the orders of this Court in allowing the transfer B
petitions filed by wives being almost mechanically allowing is that they
are not denied justice on account of their inability to participate in
proceedings instituted at a different place on account of difficulty either
on account of financial or physical hardship. Our Constitutional scheme
provides for guaranteeing equal access to justices, power of the State to
make special provisions for women and children 6 and duty to uphold the
c
dignity ofwomen 7 • Various steps have been taken in this direction 8 •
10. As noted in the Order dated 9'h January, 2017 quoted above,
Section 19 of the.Act permits proceedings to be filed not only at a place
where the wife resides but also at place where marriage is solemnized
or the place where the parties last resided together. It is mostly in the D
' Premlata Singh v. Rita Singh (2005) 12 SCC 277
4 Gana Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad (2000) 10 sec 277

'Article 39A of the Constitution of India, 1950.
6
Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
7
Article 51-A(e) of the Constitution of India, 1950.
•. In Articles 243-D and 243-T of the Constitution, provision has been made for E
reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipalities by 73"' and 74'" Amendments.
Need for affirmative action consistent with the Article 15(3) of the Constitution has led
to several measures being adopted by the legislature, executive as well as the judiciary
to advance gender justice. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CED AW) underlines the awareness ofthe international
commitments on the subject which has inspired several judgments of this Cou1t [Vishaka
v. State-0fRajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241; Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance F
Co. Ltd. (2010) 9 SCC 218; Charu Khurana v. Union of India (2015)1 SCC 192;
Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)2 SCC 36; Danial Latifi v. Union oflndia (200 I )7 SCC 740;
Voluntary Health Assn. of Punjab v. Union oflndia (2013) 4 SCC l and; Mackinnon
Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa ( 1987) 2 SCC 469. It was observed in
Volu11tary Health Ass11. as under:
"20. It would not be an exaggeration to say that a
G
society that does not respect its women cannot be treated to be
civilised. In the first part ofthe last century Swami Vivekanand
had said:

'Just as a bird could not fly with one wing 011/y, a
nation would not march forward if the women are left
behind."' H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] S S.C.R.

A said situations that the wife has hardship in contesting proceedings. At
the same time, under the law the husband is legally entitled to file
proceedings at such places. Territorial jurisdiction of court is statutorily
laid down in C.P.C. or other concerned statutes.
11. Accordingly, we have heard Shri C.A. Sundaram, learned senior
B counsel as amicus curiae. Learned amicus has suggested that Section
.19 of the Act should be interpreted to mean that the jurisdiction at the
place other than where wife resides being available only at the option of.
the wife or that such jurisdiction will be available in exceptional cases
where the wife is employed and the husband is unemployed or where
the husband suffers from physical or other handicap or is looking after
c the minor child. Even though we are unable to give such interpretation
in the face of plain language of statute to the contrary and it is for the
legislature to make such suitable amendment as may be considered
necessary, we are certainly in·cfined to issue directions in the interest of
justice consistent with the statute.
D 12. Mr. Nadkami, learned Addi. Solicitor General has suggested
that it will be appropriate to give some directions to meet the situation.
He submitted that paramount consideration in dealing with the issue ought
to be the interest" of justice and not mere convenience of the parties.
Thus, where husband files a petition at a place away from the residence
E of the wife, the husband can be required to bear travel and incidental
expenses of the wife, if it is so considered appropriate in the interest of
justice. At the same time, ifthe husband has genuine difficulty in making
the deposit, proceedings can be conducted by video conferencing. At
least one court room in every district court ought to be equipped with the
video conferencing facility. The interest of the minor child has also to be
F kept in mind along with the interest of the senior citizens whose interest
may be affected by one of the parties being required to undertake trips
to distant places to face the proceedings. Protracted litigation ought to
be avoided by better management and coordination so that number of
adjournments can be reduced.
G 13. We have considered the above suggestions. In this respect,
we may also refer to the doctrine of forum non conveniens which can
be applied in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest ofjustice.
Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to
stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient
H and there is any other forum which is considered to be more convenient
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 521
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

for the interest of all the parties at the ends of justice. In Modi A
Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S.G Cricket Pte. Ltd.9 this
Court observed:
"19. In Spiliada Maritime 10case the House of Lords laid down
the following principle:
"The fundamental principle applicable to both the B
. stay of English proceedings on the ground that some
. other forum was the appropriate forum and also the
grant of leave to serve proceedings out of the
jurisdiction was that the court would choose that forum
in. which the case could be tried more suitably for the c
interest of all the parties and for the ends of justice. "
The criteria to determine which was a more appropriate forum,
for the purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the court would
look for that forum with which the action had the most real
and substantial connection in terms of convenience or expense, D
availability of witnesses, the law governing the relevant
transaction and the places where the parties resided or carried
on business. If the court concluded that there was no other
available forum which was more appropriate than the English
court, it would normally refuse a stay. If, however, the court
concluded that there was another forum which was prima facie E
more appropriate, the court would normally grant a stay
unless there were circumstances militating against a stay. It
was noted that as the dispute concerning the contract in which
the proper law was English law, it meant that England was
the appropriate forum in which the case could be more suitably F
tried. "
Though these observations have been made in the context of
granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in
regulating the exercise ofjurisdiction of the court where proceedings
are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the plpintiff is the dominus /itis G
but if more than one court has jurisdiction, court can determine
which is the convenient forum and lay down conditions in the interest
of justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be availed//.
• t2003)4 sec 341
10
Spiliada Maritime Corpn. V. Cansulex Ltd. ( 1986)3 All ER 843
II Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and anr. (2004) 6 sec 254 para 30 H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] S S.C.R.

A 14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if
proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by
the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a
place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a
solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available
technology of video conferencing is used where both the pai1ies have
B
equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the
parties. We understand that in every district in the country video
conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is
available, it ought to be fully utilized and all the High Courts ought to
issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of video
c conferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where
one of the parties resides outside court's jurisdiction is one of such
categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of
video conference, proceedings may be conducted on video conferencing,
obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases,
this Court has directed recording of evidence by video conferencing 12 •
D
15. The other difficulty faced by the parties living beyond the
local jurisdiction of the court is ignorance about availability of suitable
legal services. Legal Aid Committee of every district ought to make
available selected panel of advocates whose discipline and quality can
be suitably regulated and who are ready to provide legal aid at a specified
E fee. Such panels ought to be notified on the websites of the District
Legal Services Authorities/State Legal Services Authorities/National
Legal Services Authority. This may enhance access to justice consistent
with Article 39A of the Constitution.
16. The advancement of technology ought to be utilized also for
F service on parties or receiving communication from the parties. Every
district court must have at least one e-mail ID. Administrative instructions
for directions can be issued to permit the litigants to access the court,
especially when litigant is located outside the local jurisdiction of the
Court. A designated officer/manager of a district court may suitably
G respond to such e-mail in the manner permitted as per the administrative
instructions. Similarly, a manager/information officer in every district
cq_urt may be accessible on a notified telephone during notified hours as
12 State of Maharashtra etc. v. Dr. Praful R Desai etc. (2003) 4 SCC 60 I; Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. (2005) 3 SCC 284; Budhadev
Karmaskar (4) v. State of West Bengal (2011) 10 SCC 283; Malthesh Gudda Pooja v.
H State of Karnataka and ors. (2011) 15 SCC 330
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 523
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

per the instructions. These steps may, to some extent, take care of the A
problems of the litigants. These suggestions may need attention of the
High Courts.
17. We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain
directions which may provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings
on account of inability of a party to contest proceedings at a place away B
from their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not
transferred it will result in denial ofjustice.
18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or
in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes
between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents c
are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where
proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of
justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of
defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order
incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons.
The safeguards can be:- D

i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of
Order XXV CPC. E
iv) E-mail address/phone number, ifany, at which litigant from oµt
station may communicate.
19. We hope the above arrangement may, to an extent, reduce
hardship to the litigants as noted above in the Order of this Court dated
F
9'h January, 2017. H9wever, in the present case since the matter is
pending in this Court for about three years, we are satisfied that the
prayer for transfer may be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that
proceedings in Case No. I 79A/2013 under Section 13 of the Act titled
''Harish Nagam vs. Krishna Veni Nagam" pending on the file of II
Presiding Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh shall stand G
transferred to the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. If the
parties seek mediation the transferee court may explore the possibility
of an amicable settlement through mediation. It will be open to the
transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the
witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way ·of video
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] S S.C.R.

A conferencing. Records shall be sent by court where proceedings are
pending to the transferee court forthwith.
20. T~e Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the courts
concerned. A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts for
appropriate action.
B 21. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
rendered by Mr. Atmaram N .S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate.
22. The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly.

c
Ankit Gyan Petition disposed of.