Although either of the spouses wasn't present during the hearing, seeking transfer of a marital dispute case, the Bombay High Court passed the order considering the fact that the couple was served notices on WhatsApp and email.
Observing that the woman will have to face hardships and inconvenience to pursue her cases filed against her estranged husband in another city, the HC transferred all three cases from a court in Pune to the one in Nashik.
Absence of Both Parties and Advocate's Discharge
Apart from absence of both the parties, even the woman's advocate had sought discharge from the case, citing that his client hasn't given further instructions with regards to the case. Both the parties were served notices on WhatsApp and email, said woman's advocate, Ansari Shahid Ali. Apparently, the digital communication didn't evince a response from either party.
The court noted in its order that it accepted the issuance of notice through digital mode and was passing the order. “None of the parties are present today. However, I have perused the papers and proceedings before me,” the order read. Justice Kamal Khata passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the woman in 2019 seeking transfer of the cases citing inconvenience to travel to Pune. The woman reasoned that she is dependent on her parents and has no source of income.
Background of the Marital Dispute
According to the plea, the two married in February 2011 in Nashik and have two daughters. The woman alleged that the man drove her away from the house and since then she is residing with her parents in Nashik. In March 17, 2016, she received a notice from the man stating that he had given her triple 'talaq'.
Between 2014 and 2018, she filed three different cases in a court in Pune against her husband alleging domestic violence and cruelty. The man approached the Pune civil judge to declare that 'talaq' was valid.
Plea for Transfer and Wife's Convenience
Advocate Ansari sought transfer of the case, stating that his client had no source of income and there is no one to take care of her daughter when she travels to Pune, which is some 250 km away. Citing apex court judgments, he averred, “In matrimonial disputes, it's the convenience of the wife which is preferred over the convenience of the husband while considering the transfer of a case from one court to another”.
Noting that the woman will not only have to suffer undue hardship but also will face considerable travel inconvenience, the HC allowed her plea.