False Rape Cases in India

Judgments & Grounds of False Rape Cases in India

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the recent judgment NANDAKUMAR & ANR. VS THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS. recognize Live-In relationship as a legal for the adults to live freely together without marriage. The objective of the apex court is the protection of the women under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In recent days, the couple used to live together and in between the cohabitation there, mutual bonding becomes strong which led the physical relationship between them. Earlier women cannot claim maintenance or alimony but after the recent judgment women in live-in-relation can seek the court for maintenance or alimony.

In all this, there is great hardship faced by a man in the live-In relation after break up. Nowadays women in live-In relation on account of disputes between the couple that led to the consequence of break up. They make their anger and frustration out by alleging the man in which they are in a relationship with the false allegations of rape under section 375 of I.P.C.

Rape is defined u/s 375 I.P.C. reads as under 375.

Rape.—A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following de­scriptions:—

  1. Against her will.
  2. Without her consent.
  3. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
  4. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be law­fully married.
  5. With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe­fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
  6. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offense of rape.

(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

A physical relation on the pretext of marriage is not considered as the offense of rape. There are several grounds on which the accused can prove that the physical relation during the live-in relationship does not amount to rape but it is the consensual sex. Consensual sex is the physical relation takes place between the couple with the consent of the women.

If once the live-in relationship is established then there are several factors become favorable for the accused. In rape cases, there is no limitation of time for lodging F.I.R. supported by various judgments.

Grounds for the accused to get acquitted from the false allegations of rape

  1. Physical relation takes place between the couples before the pretext of a marriage proposal.
  2. Whether the consent was given wholly understanding the nature and consequences of the sexual indulgence.
  3. Consent not obtained by misrepresentation.
  4. The intention of the accused at the time of proposal of marriage.

Once it was proved that sexual intercourse between the couple takes place is not rape but consensual sex, then women can sue the men in Civil court on the ground of Breach of Promise to marry. There are several judgment in which the accused is acquitted by the Hon’ble court.

Judgments

  1. Rohit Tiwari vs State, on 24 May 2016, Delhi High Court

HELD

The testimony does not inspire confidence and circumstantial evidence do not lend any in the support of the same. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and get an order of acquittal.

  1. Uday vs State of Karnataka on 19 February 2003, Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HELD

Consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.

  1. Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs State of (NCT) of Delhi on 26 August 2009, Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

HELD

In case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter. It can be stated with the certitude that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not of such quality which can place reliance upon.

  1. State vs Amit Kumar on 22 November 2014, Delhi High Court

HELD

Live-in relationship is established and physical relation takes place before the promise of the pretext of marriage. This led to the acquittal of the accused.

Read also: JUDGEMENT OF TRANSFER PETITION IN FAVOUR OF THE WIFE IN SUPREME COURT

Kapil Chandna Advocate
Supreme Court of India
9899011450,9911218741

Importance, Procedure & Limitations of Red Corner Notice & Look Out Circular Notice

Red Corner Notice & Look Out Circular Notice - Importance, Procedure & Limitations

Importance, Procedure & Limitations of Red Corner Notice & Look Out Circular Notice

Usually, people after committing the crime tries to abscond from the place where the cause of action arises during trials to prevent further action taken by the law maintaining authorities against them. To deal with these situations there were many tools with which law authorities equipped with such as Red Notice and Look Out Circular.

On 2, July 2018 Interpol issued a Red Corner Notice on the request of CBI and Enforcement Directorate of India against a Diamond merchant Nirav Modi, Neeshal Modi and Shubash Parab in case of money laundering of Punjab National Bank fraud of Rs 14,357 crore.

Interpol is the world’s largest International Police organization having 192-member countries. Its main object is to make a world safer by making the police of all member countries working together.

Red Corner Notice is a request to locate and provisionally arrest an individual pending extradition. It is issued by General Secretariat at the request of a member country or an international tribunal based on a valid arrest warrant. It is not an International arrest warrant.

Interpol cannot compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a Red Notice. Each member country decides for itself what legal value to give a Red Notice within their borders.

Subjects of Red Notice

Red Notices are issued for individuals sought for prosecution or to serve a sentence. When the individual is sought for prosecution it means that they are suspected of committing a crime but have not yet been prosecuted and so should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The procedure of Issuing Red Corner Notice

  1. Police of the member country via National Central Bureau provide a case information and requests for Red Notice.
  2. The INTERPOL General Secretariat publishes the Notice after a compliance check is completed.

Importance of Red Corner Notice

  1. International Visibility to the case.
  2. Criminals and suspects are flagged to border officials, making travel difficult.
  3. Countries can request and share critical information linked to an investigation.

Revocation of Red Corner Notice

If the Red Notice is issued against the individual he had to approach the Commission for the Control of files (CCF). It advises INTERPOL on the processing of personal information. They have to comply with the terms of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and INTERPOL’s Constitution. There are several grounds on which Red Notice be challenged.

On 16, June 2017 Look Out Circular (LOC)was issued against Karti P. Chidambaram by investigation agency.
Look Out Circular has not had any proper definition. It is a circular letter or we can say a tool used by authorities to check whether a person traveling is a wanted person by police or any Investigating Agency or not. These circulars are opened to trace the absconding criminals and to monitor or prevent the entry or exit of the persons who may be required by law enforcement authorities. It is a circular that has prescribed proforma by the concerned authority.
Its main object is to detain the wanted person and hand over the subject to the concerned authority on whose request LOC had issued. It enables the government to prevent the criminals from leaving the country and stop the criminals of other countries to enter into the borders of the nation.

How Look Out Circular (LOC) issued

Delhi High Court laid guidelines in the case titled as In Court on its own motion vs State V. Gurnek Singh Etc.on 11, August 2010 for issuing LOC as follows:

  1. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offenses under IPC or penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs (Non-Bailable Warrants) and other coercive measures and there was a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
  2. The Investigation Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details and reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone can give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

Procedure to get Look Out Circular (LOC) Cancelled

  1. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered the issuance of LOC and explains that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where the case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
  2. The subordinate court’s jurisdiction in affirming or canceling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.
  3. The request for opening of LOC invariably is issued with the approval of an officer, not below the rank of:
  4. Deputy Secretary to the Government of India; or
  5. Joint Secretary in the State Government; or
  6. District Magistrate of concerned District; or
  7. Superintendent of the Police (SP); or
  8. SP in CBI or an officer of the equivalent level working in CBI; or
  9. Zonal Director in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)or of equivalent level (including Asst. Director (Ops.) in Headquarters of NCB); or
  10. Deputy Commissioner or an officer of equivalent level in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or Central Board of Direct Taxes or Central Board of Excise and Customs; or
  11. Assistant Director of IB/BoI; or
  12. Deputy Secretary of R&AW; or
  13. An officer not below the rank of SP in National Investigation Agency; or
  14. Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate; or
  15. Protector of Emigrants in the Office of the Protectorate of Emigrants or an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary of the Government of India; or Designated officer of INTERPOL Further the LOCs can be issued as per the directions of any Criminal Court in India

Limitations of Look Out Circular (LOC)

  1. LOC cannot be opened unless a minimum of three Identifying parameters is given apart from sex and nationality but there are some exceptions i.e. CI suspects, terrorists, anti-national elements etc. in larger National Interests.
  2. It can be issued if the name and passport particulars of the person concerned are available.
  3. The legal liability of the action taken by the immigration authorities in the pursuance of the LOC rests with the originating agency.
  4. Offenses that are not cognizable in that the originating agency can only request that they are informed about the arrival and departure of that person.
  5. LOC is valid for one year only from the date of its issuance except in the following case.
  6. Ban-entry LOCs issued for watching the arrival of wanted persons.
  7. Loss of passport (Which ordinarily continued until the validity of the document).
  8. LOCs regarding impounding of passports.
  9. LOCs issued at the behest of Courts and INTERPOL.

Recently Hon’ble High Court of Madrasquashed the Look Out Circular Notice (LOC) against Karti P. Chidambaram on the ground that the conditions precedent for issuance of the impugned LOC were absent.

Supreme Court of India

Kapil Chandna Advocate

9899011450,9911218741

Judgement of Transfer Petition in Favour of the Wife in Supreme Court

Judgement of Transfer Petition in Favour of the Wife in Supreme Court

Judgement of Transfer Petition in Favour of the Wife in Supreme Court

What is a Transfer Petition?

 

Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Supreme Court to transfer any Case, appeal or other proceedings from High Court or other civil courts in one State to a High Court or other civil court in any other State. This power can be and generally is exercised by the Supreme Court of India if the matter suffices the need for justice. Hence wide powers are given to the Supreme Court to order a transfer if it feels that the ends of justice so require.

 

The convenience of the Wife as an argument

 

Although as a common trend, the Supreme Court used to take a soft side towards the transfer petition filed by the wife. As in the cases given below, the convenience of the wife was a prominent point to be taken into consideration. However, nowadays, it is to be noted that the trend of feminism in Supreme Court decisions is such that the decisions are purely based on logical arguments. The “soft side for women”  is not anymore visible in the later supreme court decisions. That being said, it does not mean that the courts do not consider the convenience of the wife as an argument.

 

Some example for Transfer petition in favour of the wife,

 

In the cases of Smt. Neeraja Gupta Vs. Dr. Rajesh Gupta, 2002(1) HLR 273, this court allowed the transfer application filed by the wife but Jind to Mansa instead of from Jind to Abohar on the ground that convenience of the wife has to be looked into.

In the case of Boby Rani alias Babita Vs. Suresh Kumar, 2011(1) HLR 284, this Court has allowed the transfer petition on the ground that convenience of the wife is to be seen. In this case, wife is 70% handicapped.

However, in the case of Veena v. Vinay Kumar, 1992 (1) HLR 380, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the application under Section 24 of CPC instituted by the wife for transfer of divorce petition on the ground that she pleaded for her convenience alone and failed to make out a case for transfer of proceedings at Jagadhri to Ferozepur in terms of Section 24 CPC. The court ruled that the convenience of one party to the litigation i.e. wife alone, cannot be accepted as of rule. The Court is required to adopt a balanced view of convenience of both the parties, of course, maybe with some premium in favor of the wife.

In the case of Mona Aresh Goel vs Aresh Satya Goel on 21 March 2000, wherein the transfer petition was filed by the wife to transfer the divorce proceedings taken by the husband in Bombay to Delhi, where she stayed with her parents. The transfer petition avers that the wife had no independent income and that her parents were not in a position to bear the expenses of her travel from Delhi to Bombay to contest the divorce proceedings. She averred that she is twenty-two years old and cannot travel to and stay in Bombay alone for, there is no one in Bombay with whom she can stay. Hence the court allowed such a petition in these circumstances.

A very poignant and logical judgment was observed in Premlata Singh v. Rita Singh wherein this Court had not transferred the proceedings but directed the husband to pay for traveling, lodging and boarding expenses of the wife and/or person accompanying her for each hearing. The said principle was also followed in Gana Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad.

In the case of Santhini vs Vijaya Venkatesh on 9 October 2017, the court cited various cases. The court before reaching the final conclusions made a reference to the following cases, it made apt to refer to the decisions that have been noted in Krishna Veni Nagam.

In Mona Aresh Goel ( as discussed above) the three-Judge Bench was dealing with the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings for divorce that was instituted by the husband in Bombay. The prayer of the wife was to transfer the case from Bombay to Delhi. The averment was made that the wife had no independent income and her parents were not in a position to bear the expenses of her travel from Delhi to Bombay to contest the divorce proceedings. That apart, various inconveniences were set forth and the husband chose not to appear in the Transfer Petition. The Court, considering the difficulties of the wife, transferred the case from Bombay to Delhi.

In Lalita A. Ranga, the Court, taking note of the fact that the husband had not appeared and further appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, thought it appropriate to transfer the petition so that the wife could contest the proceedings. Be it noted, the wife had a small child and she was at Jaipur and it was thought that it would be difficult for her to go to Bombay to contest the proceedings from time to time.

 

In Deepa’s case, the stand of the wife was that she was unemployed and had no source of income and, on that basis, the prayer of transfer was allowed. In Archana Rastogi, the Court entertained the plea of transfer and held that the prayer for transfer of matrimonial proceedings taken by the husband in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh to the Court of District Judge, Delhi deserved acceptance and, accordingly, transferred the case. Similarly, in Leena Mukherjee, the prayer for transfer was allowed.

In Neelam Bhatia, the Court declined to transfer the case and directed the husband to bear the to-and-fro traveling expenses of the wife and one person accompanying her by train whenever she actually appeared before the Court.

In Soma Choudhury, taking into consideration the difficulties of the wife, the proceedings for divorce were transferred from the Court of District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur (Tripura) to the Family Court at Alipore (West Bengal).

In Anju Ohri case, the Court, on the foundation of the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice, allowed the transfer petition preferred by the wife.

In Vandana Sharma, the Court, taking note of the fact that the wife had two minor daughters and appreciating the difficulty on the said bedrock, thought it appropriate to transfer the case and, accordingly, so directed.

How to Protect Trans Border Reputation Trademark In India

How to Protect Trans Border Reputation Trademark In India

A trademark is a visual symbol applied to an article with a view to indicating the trade source from which it comes. It can be a word, device, label, name, letter, numeral, brand, heading or colors. The purpose of the trademark is to distinguish goods or services of one origin from those of the others. It advertises the product and creates an image for it. As the trademark creates a separate identity for a product, it should be protected from infringement and passing off.

A trademark is a company’s identity in the market, an identity which they bank upon, an identity to which a customer connects, an identity which not only creates a relationship with the customers but also creates a platform of the market for that company.

Transborder reputation is basically similar to reputation only but just the fact that the presence of that company is Pan world or Global. When we talk about trans border reputation the important aspect to look out for is the fact that a name, brand and its presence is not merely confined to one place but can be omnipresent.

Transborder reputation is provided in Section 35 of the Indian Trade Mark Act, 1999 and offers protection to foreign trademarks on the basis of their international reputation.

SECTION 134 (C): For passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trademark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark, whether registered or unregistered.

In addition to Section 134 (c), Section 27(2) of trademarks act 1999, expressly provides for an action of passing off if:

1. The trademarks are similar.

2. The defendant is deceptively passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff.

3. There is bound to be confusion in the minds of the customers.

The test to be applied for checking if the confusion is persisting is ‘whether a person of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection would be confused or not’.

 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:

  1. The Supreme Court in Ruston & Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. 1970 2 SCR 222, held that “there does not seem to be any requirement that the plaintiff must carry on business in India before bringing an action for passing off for he can prove that he has otherwise acquired reputation in the country.”
  2. In R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC), the doctrine of “transborder reputation” was considered in detail for the first time. It was held that “In today’s world it cannot be said a product and the trademark under which it is sold abroad, does not have a reputation or goodwill in countries where it is not available. The knowledge and awareness of it and its critical evaluation and appraisal travels beyond the confines of the geographical area in which it is old.
  3. The Supreme Court held in Milment Oftho Industries v Allergan Inc (2004 (28) PTC 585) that the first entrant in the market has the right in the mark; the court even considered the word ‘market’ to extend to the global market.
  4. In WWE v Reshma Collection (October 15, 2014) the Delhi High Court held for the first time in India that due to advancements in technology and the changing ways of conducting business online, it is possible for an entity to have a virtual presence in a place some distance from its physical presence. The availability of website transactions is virtually the same thing as the seller having shops in that place in the physical world.
  5. At the same time, the courts have taken the view that merely filing an application for registration or a registration per se(if granted in India) does not prove used, as observed in Marico v Agrotech (2010 (43) PTC 39 (Del)). Using a later mark and taking unfair advantage of an earlier mark give statutory recognition to the concept of trademark dilution.

5 Easy Ways You Can Defend Transfer Petition (100% Must read)

lawyer to defend transfer petition in india delhi

When wife files the transfer petition in Supreme Court usually husband is defenceless, although husband receives the summons from the Supreme Court if the transfer is from one state to another, here are some of the judgments which can help

In Gayatri Mohapatra v. Ashit Kumar Panda : (2003)11SCC731 , the Supreme Court has found that the wife is a Director in a Company run by her mother travelled from place to place and could not be permitted to state that she was incapable of travel as a ground to seek transfer of the husband’s caseIn Teena Chhabra v. Manish Chhabra (2004) 13 SCC 411, the Supreme Court accepted the husband’s offer to bear the expenses for the travel, boarding and lodging of the wife and dismissed her transfer petition on the ground that she had no source of income to travel.

In M. Sivagami v. R. Raja : (2005) 12 SCC 301, the Supreme Court disallowed the wife’s transfer application based on monetary grounds directing the husband to pay her litigation costs and also to cover her costs and expenses and those of her witnesses.

In Kanagalakshmi v. A. Venkatesan : (2004) 13 SCC 405, the Supreme Court again accepted the plea of the husband that he would bear the expenses not only for the wife but also her companion for their travel and stay at the place where the case was pending and accordingly dismissed her transfer petition. The same principle was reiterated in Priyanka Batra v. Manish Batra (2005) 12 SCC 236; Kakali Pal v. Balai Chandra Pal (2005) 12 SCC 216; Anuradha Dutta v. Subash Chandra Dutta (2004) 13 SCC 694; Sarita Singh Alias Babli Baghel v. A.P. Baghel (2005) 12 SCC 376; Kamudi Aurora v. Surinder Pal Singh Aurora (2004) 13 SCC 634 and Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet Singh (2005) 11 SCC 446. In Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535, the Supreme Court observed that merely because the petitioner was a lady it did not mean that she could not travel to another place and that, at the highest, she could be paid expenses for her travel and stay. In Premlata Singh and Ors. v. Rita Singh : (2005) 12 SCC 277, the Supreme Court directed the transfer of the case taking into account the fact that the wife was undergoing treatment for kidney failure. In Usha George v. Koshy George : (2000) 10SCC95, the Supreme Court has found that a number of hearings had already taken place held that it was not proper to transfer the proceedings to any other Court.

In Anindita Das v. Srijit Das : (2006) 9 SCC 197, the Supreme Court found that leniency to ladies shown by the Court in transfer matters was being often misused and taken advantage of by women. Stating so, the Court observed that it was required to consider each petition on its merit. On the facts of that case, the Court found that the grandparents were available to look after the six-year-old child and taking note of the husband’s offer to bear the expenses for the wife’s travel and stay along with her companion, rejected her transfer application based on those grounds.

In Eluri Raji Reddy and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Anr. : (2004) CriLJ2555, the Supreme Court found that as the wife had a house in Andhra Pradesh and her parents were living there it would be proper to transfer the cases filed by her at Delhi to a Court in Andhra Pradesh as sought by her husband.

In Neelam Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia : (2004) 13 SCC 436 the Supreme Court taking note of the fact that the case had progressed to the stage of trial disallowed the wife’s transfer application, directing the husband to bear the travel and incidental expenses of the wife and her companion.

In Meenakshi v. Mukesh Kumar : (2004) 13 SCC 497, the Supreme Court accepted the statement made by the husband with regard to the safety and security of the wife and that he would bear her conveyance charges and disallowed the wife’s transfer application. From an overview of the aforestated Judgments, it is clear that there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied in cases of this nature. Each case would ultimately turn on its own special facts and circumstances and must be dealt with accordingly.

Read Also:-Transfer petition in favour of the wife

In this regard, reference may be made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust: AIR2008SC1333. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the power of the Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings under Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, observed that the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations and that it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution, and circumspection. The Court indicated certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer. These are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; ‘interest of justice’ demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding. The Court stated that the above was only illustrative and were not to be treated as exhaustive. The Supreme Court also observed that normally while making an order of transfer, the Court may not enter into the merits of the matter as it may affect the final outcome of the proceedings or cause prejudice to one or the other side but at the same time an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the court and the circumstances which weighed with it in taking the action.

Typical Transfer petition Grounds Taken By Wife Are Below:-

o    Having a child o    Travel is unsafe being a lady o    Expenses required for travel o    A threat to life at Husband’s place o    Husband is very influential in his place o    Inconvenience to travel a long distance Counters for the above Transfer petition Grounds

 COUNTER OF POINT 1:

  • One of the parents of the wife can look after the child and another can accompany her. Some of the precedences where this court has taken a similar stand are listed below. (TP (CIVIL) NO.191 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NO. 27 OF 2005)

COUNTER OF POINT 2

  • Just because she is a lady does not mean that she cannot travel a distance of just 8 hours. Supreme court also accepted this fact recently while disposing of the “TP (CIVIL) NOS.117-118 OF 2004” while passing the following order.

“The grounds made out are that the Petitioner is an unemployed lady and totally dependent on her uncle and that she will be hard-pressed to defend the Suit at Muzaffar Nagar. It is also claimed that there is a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights and certain other proceedings pending in Delhi. In our view, no substantial ground for transfer has been made out. If the Petitioner wishes that all cases be tried at one place, she may apply for the same and we will transfer the cases pending in Delhi to Muzaffar Nagar. Merely because the Petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar. At the highest, she can be paid expenses for travel and stay. We, therefore, direct that the Respondent shall pay to the Respondent and a companion travel and stay expenses on every occasion that the Petitioner is required to go to Muzaffar Nagar. The Court at Muzaffar Nagar shall ensure that such payment is made to the Petitioner on every occasion. With these directions, the Transfer Petitions are dismissed.” Just because she is a lady does not mean that she cannot travel a distance of just 8 hours. The respondent wants to bring to the kind attention of the honourable court that in general ladies are misusing the leniency shown by this honourable court in regard to the transfer petition. Supreme court also accepted this fact recently while disposing of the “TP (CIVIL) NO.191 OF 2005” while passing the following order. “Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case, the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every visit when the Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the Court on a particular date, she can always apply for the exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out. Accordingly, we dismiss the Transfer Petition. We, however, direct that the Respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the Petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi”.

COUNTER OF POINT 3:

  • Ready to pay all expenses but mention that this will be paid on actual. Husband is willing to pay reasonable expenses to wife whenever she is required to travel for these cases. Some of the precedences where the Supreme Court has taken a similar stand is listed below. (TP (CIVIL) NO.191 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2005, TP(C) No. 24/2005, TP (CIVIL) NO. 27 OF 2005, TP(C) No. 61/2005, TP (Civil) No.66 of 2003, TP (Civil) No.136 of 2003, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 212 OF 2006, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 142 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NOS.117-118 OF 2004, TP NO..416 OF 2004, T.P.(C) No. 489 OF 2004, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 561 OF 2004, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 191 OF 2005, TP(C) NO.195 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NO.243 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 245 OF 2005, TP(C) NO.246 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 302 OF 2005, TP NO.393 OF 2005, TP (C) NO. 414/2005, TP (CIVIL) NO.459 OF 2005, TP (C) NO. 564 OF 2005, TP (C) NO. 686 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 698 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 722 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NO.725 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 741 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 743 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 746 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 759 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 769 OF 2005, TP (C) NO. 798 OF 2005).

COUNTER OF POINT 4:

  • You have to mention that you too face a threat at her place. You need to argue that in that case should be transferred to a neutral place where both husband and wife can fight the legal battle peacefully. There is a judgment on this. Will be provided on request. Please note that in this case, you have to give her travel and stay expenses. But this should be a last-ditch effort. You should not mention this point of the neutral place in the petition. In case your lawyer feels that the judge may transfer the petition then only this method should be used.

COUNTER OF POINT 5:

  • You have to mention that the wife’s family is also influential in their place. You need to argue that in that case it should be transferred to a neutral place where both husband and wife can fight the legal battle peacefully. There is a judgment on this. Will be provided on request. Please note that in this case, you have to give her travel and stay expenses. But this should be a last-ditch effort. You should not mention this point of the neutral place in the petition. In case your lawyer feels that the judge may transfer the petition then only this method should be used.

COUNTER OF POINT 6:

  • The distance between place A and B are not so far that it will cause inconvenience to wife. Some of the precedences where this court has taken a similar stand are listed below. (TP (CIVIL) NO.191 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NO. 23 OF 2005, TP (C) No. 61/2005, TP (Civil) No.66 of 2003, TP (CIVIL.) NO(s). 142 OF 2005, TP (CIVIL) NOS.117-118 of 2004).

Contact us:- Kapil chandna- Best lawyer in Delhi High court 9899011450