Case Name: Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree Sharma
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: (2008) 9 SCC 648
Bench: Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph
Appellant: Durgesh Sharma
Respondents: Jayshree Sharma
Date of Judgment: 17 July 2008
Introduction
This appeal before the Supreme Court of India concerns the interpretation and demarcation of jurisdiction between Section 24 and Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the context of applications for the transfer of civil suits from one State to another. The case arose from a matrimonial dispute in which the wife sought the transfer of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights from a court in Madhya Pradesh to a court in Delhi, citing personal inconvenience and safety concerns. The central legal questions raised are whether the power to transfer a civil suit from a court in one State to a court in another State resides exclusively in the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or whether a High Court may exercise any such power under Section 24, and whether the personal convenience of a party, particularly a female litigant in a matrimonial proceeding, can constitute a sufficient ground for the exercise of transfer jurisdiction. The judgment has become a significant procedural authority, clarifying the respective domains of the High Court and the Supreme Court in transfer matters and affirming a humane and sensitised approach to the circumstances of women litigants in matrimonial disputes.
Summary of Facts
The appellant, Durgesh Sharma, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, the respondent Jayshree Sharma, before a Civil Court in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The suit was filed in the courts of the State in which the matrimonial home was situated and where the cause of action had arisen. The respondent, who was residing in Delhi at the time, filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court of India under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of the suit from the court at Indore to an appropriate court in Delhi.
In support of her petition, the respondent contended that travelling from Delhi to Indore for the purposes of the litigation placed an unreasonable burden upon her, both financially and in terms of personal safety. She submitted that attending court proceedings in a distant city was impractical and that the safety concerns she faced made regular attendance at the Indore court an ordeal. The Supreme Court granted the transfer petition and transferred the suit to a court in Delhi.
The appellant challenged the grant of the transfer petition, arguing that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to transfer suits between courts within its territorial jurisdiction, and that only intra-state transfers could be ordered by High Courts. He contended that the convenience of the respondent, without more, was an insufficient basis for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The matter before the Supreme Court was thus whether the transfer had been rightly ordered and the jurisdictional basis upon which it rested.
Issues Before the Court
1. Whether the power to transfer a civil suit pending before a court in one State to a court in another State falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or whether a High Court may exercise such a power under Section 24 of the Code.
2. Whether the personal convenience of a party, in particular the financial hardship and safety concerns of a female litigant in a matrimonial proceeding, can constitute a sufficient and legitimate ground for the exercise of the transfer jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 25.
3. Whether the transfer of the suit from Indore to Delhi was warranted on the facts presented in the transfer petition.
Arguments Given by Both Parties
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was the appropriate forum for any transfer application and that the respondent’s failure to approach the High Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rendered her petition before the Supreme Court premature. The appellant contended that Section 24 empowers a High Court to transfer suits between subordinate courts and that its jurisdiction, though territorially limited to the State, was the proper avenue for intra-state or connected transfer applications. He further argued that the personal inconvenience of a party, standing alone, is not a sufficient ground to invoke the transfer jurisdiction of the highest court in the country and that the respondent had not made out a case of exceptional hardship or exceptional circumstances.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents
The respondent submitted that since the proposed transfer was from a court in Madhya Pradesh to a court in Delhi, an inter-state transfer, the matter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had no power to effect a transfer to a court in another State. It was further argued that the financial hardship of regularly travelling from Delhi to Indore, combined with safety concerns, constituted legitimate and well-recognised grounds for seeking transfer of the suit, particularly in the context of matrimonial litigation where the female litigant is often the more economically vulnerable party. The respondent relied upon precedents recognising personal convenience as a valid consideration in transfer petitions.
Reasonings and Findings
The Supreme Court of India upheld the grant of the transfer petition and clarified the jurisdictional divide between Section 24 and Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Section 24 confers upon a High Court the power to transfer or withdraw suits, appeals, and other proceedings pending before courts subordinate to it. This power, however, is inherently territorial and extends only to courts that fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court in question. A High Court cannot, under Section 24, order the transfer of a proceeding from a court within its jurisdiction to a court situated in another State and under the supervisory jurisdiction of a different High Court.
The Court held that the power to transfer proceedings from one State to another is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court of India by virtue of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The jurisdictions of the two provisions are thus mutually exclusive: Section 24 governs intra-state transfers under the supervision of the High Court, while Section 25 governs inter-state transfers under the superintendence of the Supreme Court. The two provisions do not overlap, and a petitioner seeking an inter-state transfer has no option but to approach the Supreme Court.
On the substantive question of whether the transfer was warranted, the Court held that personal convenience of parties, including financial hardship and safety concerns, constitutes a legitimate ground for the exercise of transfer jurisdiction. The Court was alive to the particular vulnerabilities of women litigants in matrimonial disputes, who may face significant difficulties in attending court proceedings in a distant city, especially where financial dependence, childcare responsibilities, or safety considerations are at play. Relying on Mona Aresh Goel v. Keshav Goel, the Court affirmed that such concerns are not merely peripheral but form a recognised basis for transfer. The transfer to Delhi was accordingly upheld as a proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25.
Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the challenge to the transfer and upheld the order directing the transfer of the restitution of conjugal rights suit from the court at Indore to an appropriate court in Delhi. The Court confirmed that the power to transfer civil suits between courts in different States is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that Section 24 confers only intra-state transfer jurisdiction upon High Courts.
The judgment authoritatively delineates the boundary between Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and remains an important precedent for procedural law in India. The recognition of the personal convenience of a female litigant, particularly in matrimonial disputes, as a legitimate ground for transfer reflects the judiciary’s awareness of the social and economic realities that affect access to justice. The decision ensures that procedural rules serve the ends of substantive justice rather than placing an unequal burden on the more vulnerable party to a matrimonial proceeding.
Frequently Asked Questions (F&Q)
Q1: What is the difference between the transfer jurisdiction under Section 24 and Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers a High Court to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal, or other proceeding pending before any court subordinate to it to any other court subordinate to it. This jurisdiction is territorial and confined to courts within the supervisory jurisdiction of the same High Court. Section 25, by contrast, empowers the Supreme Court of India to transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceeding from any court in one State to any court in another State. The two provisions operate in mutually exclusive domains, with Section 24 governing intra-state transfers and Section 25 governing inter-state transfers.
Q2: Can personal convenience alone justify a transfer under Section 25?
The Supreme Court has held that personal convenience of a party, including financial hardship and safety concerns, is a recognised and legitimate ground for the exercise of transfer jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court has been particularly sensitive to the circumstances of female litigants in matrimonial disputes who face difficulties in attending courts in distant cities. While personal convenience alone may not always be sufficient in all categories of cases, it has been consistently recognised as a relevant and weighty consideration in matrimonial proceedings.
Q3: Why cannot a High Court transfer a suit from one State to another under Section 24?
A High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is derived from its supervisory authority over courts subordinate to it within its territorial jurisdiction. A High Court has no supervisory authority over courts in other States, which fall under the supervision of their respective High Courts. It is therefore constitutionally and jurisdictionally impossible for a High Court to direct the transfer of proceedings to a court that does not fall within its supervisory domain. The exclusive power of inter-state transfer accordingly vests in the Supreme Court of India under Section 25.
Q4: Is a litigant required to approach the High Court first before filing a transfer petition in the Supreme Court under Section 25?
Where the proposed transfer is an inter-state transfer, that is, from a court in one State to a court in another State, the litigant is not required to first approach the High Court. Since High Courts have no jurisdiction to effect inter-state transfers, any such application before a High Court would be incompetent. The appropriate forum for an inter-state transfer petition is the Supreme Court of India under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and an application directly to the Supreme Court is both proper and necessary in such cases.
Q5: What was the significance of the decision in Mona Aresh Goel v. Keshav Goel in the Court’s reasoning?
Mona Aresh Goel v. Keshav Goel was relied upon by the Supreme Court as a precedent establishing that transfer petitions filed on the ground of personal inconvenience, including financial hardship and safety concerns, are admissible and deserve sympathetic consideration. The decision affirmed that the hardship of attending distant courts is a legitimate consideration in the exercise of transfer jurisdiction, particularly in matrimonial cases where the parties may be in different cities. The reliance on this precedent reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the transfer of the suit from Indore to Delhi was properly ordered.
