Matrimonial Section 9 Transfer Request

Dear Client,
Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court of India to transfer matrimonial cases from one court to another, including staying ex-parte orders to ensure a fair and impartial trial. Transfers are typically granted when there are valid reasons to believe that a party may not receive a fair trial in the original court, or when it's difficult for one party to attend court proceedings due to geographical distance. In Sneha Parikh v. Manit Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 501
the Supreme by exercisingits powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justiceaccepted the settlement between the husband and wife arrived at the SupremeCourt Mediation Centre and granted them divorce by mutual consent and alsoquashed the FIR lodged by the wife criminal case u/s 498A, 406 and 506 etc.IPC. InSanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220 the SupremeCourt the court exercised its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice ina Transfer Petition and directed that the cases pending between the parties aredisposed of in view of the settlement between the parties; and all pendingcases arising out of the matrimonial proceedings including the case ofrestitution of conjugal rights and guardianship case between the parties shallstand disposed of and consigned to the records in the respective courts. However, there are some exception, where the appeal of transfer of matrimonial suits were rejected and dismissed by the Court. In Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan v. Navin Chauhan, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2020 at the instance of the wife the Supreme Court refused to transfer the divorcepetition filed by the husband at Gautam buddha Nagar U.P. to Delhi in view ofthe availability of video conference facility. In Kanagalakshmi v. A. Venkatesan, (2004) 13 SCC 405 transfer petition wasfiled by the wife seeking transfer of pending matrimonial dispute at Bandra,Mumbai to Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu on the ground that it is difficult for her totravel from Tirunelveli to Mumbai to pursue her case. The husband in his replystated that he is prepared to bear the expenses not only of the petitioner butalso of her accompanying person both for travel and stay at Mumbai. On suchassurance by the husband the Supreme Court rejected the transfer petition anddirected the Family Court, Mumbai to dispose of the petition and applicationsfor interim maintenance if any within six months from the receipt of the orderof the Supreme Court and further directed the Family Court, Mumbai ifpossible, to cross-examine both the parties in regard to their affidavit on the same day. So, given the proposition of relevant law and the averments of the Apex Court, it is recommended to consult with a Senior Advocate specializing in matrimonial suits for tailored advice and steps to navigate the issue effectively.