KRISHNA VENI NAGAM versus HARISH NAGAM
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 513, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 513 
KRISHNA VEN! NAGAM 
v. 
HARISH NAGAM 
(Transfer Petition (C) No. 1912 of2014) 
MARCH 09, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Supreme Court - Directions - Transfer Petition - Alternative 
A 
8 
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; 
(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. 
D 
E 
Constitution of India - Art.39-A -
Ignorance of parties 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 
notified on the websites of the legal service authorities. 
Transfer Petition - Respondent-husband filed
divorce petition 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
G 
H 
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 
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) 
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; 
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 
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 
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; 
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 
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 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
516 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004) 13 sec 436 
referred to 
(2004) 13 sec 462 
referred to 
(2008) 14 SCR 750 
referred to 
(2008) 11 sec 768 
referred to 
(2007) is sec 556 
referred to 
(2005) 12 sec 211 
referred to 
c2000) 10 sec 211 
refened to 
(2003) 1 SCR 480 
referred to 
(1986) 3 All ER 843 
referred to 
[2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 841 referred to 
(2003) 3 SCR 244 
referred to 
(2005) 3 sec 284 
referred to 
[2017] 5. S.C.R. 
Para 7 
Para 7 
Para 7 
Para7 
Para7 
Para8 
Para8 
Para 13 
Para 13 
Para 14 
Para 14 
Para 14. 
(2011) 10 SCR 577 
referred to 
Para 14 
[2011) 11 SCR 870 
referred to 
Para 14 
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 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J.] 
517 
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: 
c 
"This petition ts filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil 
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 
. 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 
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? 
· 
E 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 5 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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. " 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(Emphasis added) 
6. Thus, the question is whether an order can be passed so as to 
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 Das1 " ••• On an average at 
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 a different place, it may 
render it "expedient for ends of justice" to transfer proceedingsc. 
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) I 0 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; 
and An ju Ohri v. Varinder Ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556.
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
519 
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 
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 children6 and duty to uphold the 
dignity ofwomen7• Various steps have been taken in this direction8• 
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 
' 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 
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 
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 
society that does not respect its women cannot be treated to be 
civilised. In the first part of the 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."' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
520 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] S S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
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 of justice. 
Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to 
stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient 
and there is any other forum which is considered to be more convenient
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
521 
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 
. 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 
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, 
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 
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 
tried. " 
Though these observations have been made in the context of 
granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in 
regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings 
are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the plpintiff is the dominus /itis 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
522 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] S S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 conferencing12• 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
State of Karnataka and ors. (2011) 15 SCC 330
KRISHNA VENI NAGAM v. HARISH NAGAM 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
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. 
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 
from their ordinary residence on the ground that if proceedings are not 
transferred it will result in denial of justice. 
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 
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:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility. 
ii) Availability of legal aid service. 
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of 
523 
A 
B 
c 
D 
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 
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 
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 
F 
G 
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. 
B 
c 
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. 
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. 
Ankit Gyan 
Petition disposed of.