IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
[Praying for transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as
“Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi to
the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY …. RESPONDENT

WITH

I.A. No. ____ of 2022: APPLICATION FOR SEEKING EX-

PARTE STAY

PAPER-BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. AISHWARYA PATHAK
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Sr. No. Date of Record of Proceedings Pages

 INDEX

Sl. Particulars of Page No. part of which Remarks

No. Document it belongs
Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of paper of file
Book) along)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) ( v)
1. Court Fee

2. Office Report on A A
Limitation

3. Listing Pro forma A1-A2 A1-A2

4. Cover Page of Paper A3

Book

5. Index of Record of A4
Proceedings

6. Limitation Report A5
prepared by the
Registry

7. Defect List A6

8. Note Sheet NS1 to…

9. Synopsis and List of B-K

Dates

10. Transfer Petition under 1-19

Section 25 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908
along with supporting
 Affidavit.

11. Annexure P-1: 20-27

A true copy of
judgment in the matter
of Reena Mehra vs. Rohit
Rai Mehra & Anr T.P(C)
20 Of 2002.

12. Annexure P-2: 28-32

A typed copy of the
Loan Sanction
Document dated
29.09.2003 issued by
HSBC Bank.

13. Annexure P-3: 33-43

A true typed copy of
the Sale Deed No. 9885
dated 31.10.2003
executed in favour of
the petitioner.

14. Annexure P-4: 44-61

A true copy of the Suit
for Declaration and
Permanent Injunction
CS DJ No. 211260 of
2016 pending before the
Saket District Court,
New Delhi.
15. Annexure P-5: 62-66
Typed copy of list of
cases pending before
the Lucknow Courts.

16. I.A. NO. /2022: 67-69

 Application for seeking
ex-parte stay.
17. I.A. NO. /2022: 70-72
Application for
Condonation of Delay
in Re-filing of the
Transfer Petition.
18. F/M 73

19. V/A 74
 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION IVA
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

 Section: 25
 Central Rule: (Title) N.A.
 Rule No (s): N.A.
 State Act (Title): N.A.
 Section: N.A.
 State Rule: (Title) N.A
 Rule No (s): N.A.
 Impugned Interim Order: N. A.
 Impugned final Order/Decree: N. A.
 High Court: N. A.
 Names of Judges: N. A.
 Tribunal/Authority: N. A.

1. Nature of matter: Civil

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1: SOMA PANDEY
(b) e-mail ID: N.A.
(c) Mobile phone number: N. A.

3. (a) Respondent No.1: SURESH PANDEY

(b) e-mail ID: Not Known
(c) Mobile phone number: Not Known
4. (a) Main category classification: 08

(b) Sub classification: 0812

5. Not to be listed before: N. A.
6. (a) Similar disposed off matter with citation, if any, & Case
Details: No any similar dispose off Case.
 A-2
(b) Similar pending matter with Case Details: No Similar
Pending Case.
7. Criminal Matters: N. A.
a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered: N. A.
b) FIR No. N. A.
c) Police Station: N. A.
d) Sentence Awarded: N/A.
e) Period of Sentence Undergone including Period of
Detention/Custody Undergone: N/A
8. Land Acquisition Matters: N. A.
a) Date of Section 4 notification: N. A.
b) Date of Section 6 notification: N. A.
c) Date of Section 17 notification: N. A.
9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N. A.
10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):N/A

 Senior citizen>65 years

 SC/ST
 Woman/child
 Disabled Legal Aid case
 In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): N. A.

Date: 19.02.2022

[AISHWARYA PATHAK]
AOR for petitioner(s)/appellants(s)
Registration No.3505
 B
SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

That the Petitioner is constrained to prefer the present Transfer

Petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under

Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of

CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as “Suresh Pandey vs. Soma

Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge,

Saket District Court, New Delhi to the Court of Ld. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

The aforesaid suit has been filed by the respondent for Permanent

Injunction in respect of house 100-S, Sector 7, Jasola Vihar New

Delhi. The said house was purchased by the petitioner, by her

own hard-earned money and a Sale Deed was executed in the

name of petitioner and the petitioner took the peaceful possession

of the said house. The loan EMIs has also been paid by the

petitioner herself and she is the absolute owner of the said house.

The suit has been filed by the respondent herein with a view to

harass the petitioner due to the matrimonial dispute between the

parties. It is pertinent to mention here that in the identical matter,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reena Mehra vs. Rohit
 C
Rai Mehra & Anr [2003] INSC 21 (24 January 2003) held that “it

would serve the ends of justice better if Suit No.680 of 1999

pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is transferred to the City

Civil Court, Bombay so that the petitioner may have a fair

opportunity to defend herself in those proceedings.”

It is important to mention here that there are several matrimonial

disputes/litigations between the parties are also pending before

the Lucknow Courts.

Declaratory Suit No. CS DJ 211260 of 2016 titled Suresh Pandey Vs.

Soma Pandey along with miscellaneous applications of the same case

pending before the Court of Learned Additional District Judge,

Saket District Court, Saket, New Delhi is also the outcome of the

matrimonial dispute and also comes within the ambit of section 7 of

Family Courts Act and needs to be transferred to Lucknow in the

interest of justice.

The petitioner is a single mother who has responsibility of around

67 years old widow mother who has given her shelter and

supporting her financially to raise her minor teenage children

including a female child with speech related issues who needs

 D
more protection and care and Petitioner cannot afford to neglect

her.

The petitioner’s son is now in 10th Standard and requires help

from his mother for his studies. The daughter of petitioner is

growing teen age girl about 13 years old, having speech related

issues and needs constant presence of her mother. Leaving minors

behind to contest the case from Lucknow to New Delhi every time

is against their interest. It is pertinent to mention that all the

matrimonial cases are pending before the courts of Lucknow

between the same parties.

Hence, the present Transfer Petition.

 E
LIST OF DATES

22.01.2003 That the Petitioner and the Respondent got married on

22.01.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals at

Lucknow.

24.01.2003 In an identical matter the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the matter of Reena Mehra vs. Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr

T.P(C) 20 of 2002 held “it would serve the ends of justice

better if Suit No.680 of 1999 pending in Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi is transferred to the City Civil Court, Bombay so that

the petitioner may have a fair opportunity to defend herself

in those proceedings.”

29.09.2003 The Petitioner wanted to purchase a house and the

loan for the house was sanctioned from HSBC New

Delhi on 29.09.2003 with an instruction to avail the

same within 30 days of sanctioning.

10.10.2003 The Respondent utilised all his resources to get a job in

Dubai UAE and left for the same.

30.10.2003 The Petitioner utilised all her financial resources, took

loans from her Fixed deposits and help from her

 F
father, utilised the sanctioned loan and purchased the

House No. 100-S, Sector 7, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi,

and a sale deed was executed in the name of petitioner

and she took the peaceful possession of the said house.

The Karnataka Bank Statement for Loan against Fixed

Deposit and Withdrawal reflects the list of money

contributed from various sources.

08.11.2003 The Respondent left the job of UAE and came back to

India. It was mutually agreed between the parties that

the respondent would pay EMIs in lieu of rent of the

house, which was payable to the petitioner. The

Petitioner time-to-time made various payments for the

house from her resources.

05.12.2006 Master Shreyas Pandey, the son of both the parties was

born at Lucknow after IVF treatment.

04.03.2008 Baby Shreya Pandey born at Lucknow.

06.08.2013 The Respondent treated the Petitioner and her minor

kid with cruelty and the Petitioner was forced to file a

case under section 12 Protection of Women from

 G
Domestic Violence and under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. before the Saket Court, New Delhi.

08.10.2013 The Respondent sought for 6 months’ time to mend his

behaviour, the Petitioner in order to save her family

life, gave him an opportunity. The Statements of both

the parties were recorded before Metropolitan

Magistrate, Saket Court New Delhi and the case is

dismissed as withdrawn. Once the case of domestic

violence was withdrawn, the Respondent became

more cruel towards Petitioner and her children.

28.12.2013 The respondent compelled the petitioner to leave her

own house. In the fear of life and wellbeing, the

parents of Petitioner called the Petitioner and her

children back to Lucknow.

2014 The Respondent deliberately stopped paying the rent

of the house, the loan account became non-performing

asset. The Petitioner used all her savings and help from

her father to get the NPA account of HSBC Loan to

regularised in December 2014.

 H
The Respondent sent various false complaints and

letters to the petitioner and her father, and started bad

mouthing about her in her social circle and among

relatives. As a last resort, the Petitioner was forced to

file a case for divorce under section 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 in which issues are framed on and

since its pending at evidence stage due to the dilatory

tactics adopted by the respondent.

October The Petitioner filed an application under section 12 of

2014 DV Act before Special CJM, Customs, Lucknow

(Complaint case no. 1640 of 2014) in which interim

order was passed on 12.02.2016.

Against the said order, the respondent had filed an

appeal which was dismissed and then filed a Criminal

Revision 1057 of 2018 where he falsely stated that the

case has become infructuous.

27.02.2015 The court of Sh. Amarnath Principal Judge Lucknow in

Petition No. M-156/2013 Soma Pandey & Others vs.

Suresh Pandey under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the

 I
Respondent filed an income affidavit declaring his

property to be nil, whereas the petitioner mentioned

the property in her assets.

07.01.2016 The Petitioner withdrew her application under section

125 Cr.P.C. at Family Court Saket New Delhi with a

liberty to file at Lucknow.

19.01.2016 The Petitioner moved an application under Section 125

Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge Family Court

Lucknow.

03.06.2016 The Petitioner when visited her house with her own

To sets of keys to collect her personal articles, instead of

04.06.2016 cooperating the respondent called the police.

06.08.2016 The Respondent filed a suit for Declaration and

Permanent Injunction against the Petitioner (CS DJ No.

211260 of 2016)

11.05.2017 Learned Court of ADJ Neelofar Abida Parveen passed

an order for Status Quo. The Petitioner filed Written

Statement and an application under Order VII Rule 11

for dismissal of the suit on various grounds. The

 J
petitioner is aggrieved with this order as such she is

restricted to enter the house she purchased by her

money/ resources and lived for more than 11 years.

27.03.2018 Respondent moved an application for amendment

under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to change the cause of

action. Which was allowed on 21.02.2019. Petitioner

moved an application under section 340 CrPC for

perjury.

May 2019 Since May 2019, Respondent stopped payments rent

To which he was depositing as the EMI of the demised

November premise. The petitioner came to know about the same

2021 while checking her CIBIL score and contacted the

HSBC Bank immediately and series of mails were

exchanged which was in the knowledge of the

Respondent. The Mother of petitioner had offered her

help to close the bank loan.

06.12.2021 The Respondent concealed this fact, prevented the

bank to close the loan and moved an application under

order 39 Rule 1 & 2 in declaratory suit to linger on the

 K
matter and got duration of loan modified and

extended for another 10 years without the consent of

the petitioner or order of the Court.

Several matrimonial disputes are pending between the

same parties pending before Lucknow courts.

2016 A Declaratory suit CS 211260 of 2016 titled Suresh

Pandey Vs. Soma Pandey is pending before the

Learned Additional District Judge, Saket District

Court, New Delhi is also outcome of the matrimonial

dispute and also comes within the ambit of section 7 of

Family Courts Act, 1984 and needs to be transferred to

Lucknow in the interest of justice.

19.02.2022 Hence, the present Transfer Petition.

 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
[Praying for transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as
“Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi to
the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY
W/o Suresh Pandey
D/o Shri Ram Nath Pandey
Permanent Resident of
House No. 100-S, Sector-7,
Jasola Vihar, New Delhi.
Pin-110025
Currently Residing
16/190, Lolai, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh-226028. …..PETITIONER

VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY
S/o Shri Kapil Deo Pandey
Permanent Resident of
Sanik Kunj, Kunra Ghat,
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Currently Residing
House No. 100-S, Sector-7,
Jasola Vihar, New Delhi.
….RESPONDENT
Pin-110025

TO,
 2
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner is constrained to prefer the present

Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 seeking the transfer of CS DJ No. 211260
of 2016 titled as “Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending
in the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Saket
District Court, New Delhi to the Court of Ld. Principal
Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the respondent herein for

Permanent Injunction in respect of House No. 100-S,

Sector 7, Jasola Vihar New Delhi against the petitioner. A

Sale Deed was executed in the name of petitioner and the

petitioner took the possession of the said house. The said

house was purchased by the petitioner, by her own hard

earned money. The loan EMIs has been paid by the

petitioner herself and she is the owner of the said flat. The

suit has been filed with a view to harass the petitioner

and due to the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

It is pertinent to mention here that in the identical matter

 3
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Reena Mehra

V. Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr [2003] INSC 21 (24 January

2003) held “it would serve the ends of justice better if Suit

No.680 of 1999 pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is

transferred to the City Civil Court, Bombay so that the

petitioner may have a fair opportunity to defend herself in those

proceedings.”

3. It is important to mention here that there are several

matrimonial disputes/litigations between the parties

are pending before Lucknow Courts.

4. That the Respondent is husband of Petitioner and a

vexatious litigant. The respondent has filed about 100 of

complaints and cases in different forums and before

authorities just to cause as much discomfort, harassment,

harm and injury as possible to the petitioner. The

petitioner has filed a writ petition No. 5568 of 2019 before

Hon’ble High Court to stop the Respondent to make

frivolous complaints against the Petitioner and to declare

him as vexatious litigant. The CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 is

also the part and parcel of the vexatious litigations of the

Respondent.
 4
5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
a. That that in an identical matter, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Reena Mehra
Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr T.P(C) 20 of 2002 held “it
would serve the ends of justice better if Suit No.
680 of 1999 would serve the ends of justice better
if Suit No. 680 of 1999 pending in Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi is transferred to the City Civil
Court, Bombay so that the petitioner may have a
fair opportunity to defend herself in those
proceedings.” (A true copy of judgment dated
24.01.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the matter of Reena Mehra vs. Rohit Rai
Mehra & Anr T.P(Civil) 20 of 2002 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-1 at
page 20 to 27 )

b. That petitioner and respondent got married on

22.01.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals at
Lucknow. The petitioner wanted to purchase a
house and applied for loan with respondent. On
29.09.2003 the loan for the house was sanctioned
from HSBC New Delhi with an instruction to
avail the same within 30 days of sanctioning. (A
typed copy of the Loan Sanction Document dated
29.09.2003 issued by HSBC Bank is annexed
 5
herewith marked as ANNEXURE P- 2 at page 28
to 32)

c. That on 10.10.2003 the respondent utilised all his

resources to get a job in Dubai UAE and left for
the same.

d. That on 30.10.2003 the petitioner utilized all her

financial resources, took loans from her Fixed
deposits of Karnataka Bank and help from her
father, utilized the sanctioned loan and
purchased the House No. 100-S, Sector- 7, Jasola
Vihar, New Delhi and a sale deed was also
executed in the name of petitioner and the took
the possession of the house, and started living
there. (A typed copy of the Sale Deed No. 9885
dated 31.10.2003 executed in favour of the
petitioner is annexed herewith marked as
ANNEXURE P- 3 at page 33 to 43 )

e. That on 08.11.2003 the respondent left the job in

between and came back from UAE. It was
mutually agreed between respondent and
petitioner, that the respondent would pay the
rent of the house and the same rent would be
deposited in the bank for instalment.
 6
f. That Petitioner continued paying towards the
loan amount out of her savings and investments
done by her father.

g. That on 05.12.2006 Master Shreyas Pandey son of

the parties was born at Lucknow after IVF
treatment and on 04.03.2008 Baby Shreya Pandey
born at Lucknow through surgery due to the
birth related complications.

h. That after some time, the respondent treated

petitioner and her minor kids with cruelty and
made life of petitioner and her children
miserable. The petitioner was forced to take
shelter of the court. On 06.08.2013 petitioner filed
a case under section 12 Protection of Woman
Domestic Violence, 2005 and S.125 Cr.P.C. in the
courts of Saket New Delhi.

i. That on 08.10.2013 the respondent sought for 6

months’ time to mend the behaviour, petitioner
in order to save her family life, gave him this
opportunity believing him. Statements of both
the parties were recorded before Metropolitan
Magistrate Ms. Sheily Arora, Saket Court New
Delhi and the case under section 12 Protection of
Woman Domestic Violence, 2005 and S.125
Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was withdrawn.
 7
j. That once the case of domestic violence was
withdrawn by the petitioner, the respondent
became cruel towards the petitioner and her
children. In the fear of life and wellbeing, and
seeing no hope for change in behaviour and
conduct of respondent, the parents of the
petitioner took the petitioner and her children
back to Lucknow on 28.12.2013.

k. That since 2013, the respondent deliberately

stopped paying the rent of the house, the loan
account was categorised as non-performing
assets by the Bank. Subsequently, the petitioner
used all her savings and help from her father to
get the NPA account of HSBC Loan to
regularised in December 2014. It is pertinent to
mention that the Petitioner has given more than
Rs. 15,65,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Sixty-Five
Thousand Five Hundred Only) cash to be
deposited on the loan account, which was either
deposited directly by the respondent or
deposited in his account and transferred. The
petitioner transferred around 11,47,219/-
(Rupees Eleven Lakh, Forty-Seven Thousand
Two Hundred and Nineteen Only) via online
transfers and cheques over the period for her
house.
 8
l. That during 2014-2015, the respondent made
various false, frivolous and vexatious complaints
to various authorities and forums to make life of
petitioner difficult at her parental house. As a last
resort, the petitioner was forced to file a case for
divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (R.S. No. 1054 of 2014) before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

m. That the petitioner also filed an application

under Section 12 of DV Act before Special CJM,
Customs, Lucknow (Complaint Case No. 1640 of
2014). The Special CJM pleased to pass an order
of Interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-per month
on 12.02.2016. The respondent till date has not
complied to the interim maintenance order. The
respondent approached to Hon’ble High Court
Allahabad Lucknow Bench in the same case and
was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month for
minors owing to the fact that petitioner mother
had withdrawn her claim of maintenance, in
which he falsely stated that the petition in the
Court below has become infructuous and misled
the Hon’ble Court to get the case withdrawn,
whereas the case was pending in the lower
Court.
 9
n. Against the Complaint Case No. 1640 of 2014, the
respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed
and then filed a Criminal Revision 1057 of 2018
where he falsely stated that the case has become
infructuous.

o. That on 27.02.2015 in the court of Sh. Amarnath

Principal Judge in Petition No. M-156/2013 Soma
Pandey & Others vs. Suresh Pandey filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent filed an
income affidavit declaring his property to be nil
whereas mentioning the house of petitioner
correctly to be property of petitioner.

p. That on 06.10.2015 the father of the petitioner

passed away. Pertinently during lifetime of
father of petitioner, respondent had filed several
false and frivolous complaints against him. On
08.01.2016, the petitioner moved a not-press
application for withdrawal of the maintenance
case with the liberty to file the same at Lucknow
as after father’s demise it was difficult for her to
contest the case in New Delhi from Lucknow.
The petitioner also filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance of her
children and herself.

q. That thereafter, the Respondent filed a suit for

Declaration and Permanent Injunction against
 10
the petitioner CS DJ 211260 of 2016 before the
Saket District Court, Saket, New Delhi. (A true
copy of the Suit for Declaration and Permanent
Injunction CS DJ 211260 of 2016 filed by the
respondent against the petitioner in Saket Court
New Delhi is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE P-4 at page 44 to 61)

r. That the Learned Court of Additional District

Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi passed an
order and directed to the parties for Status Quo.
The petitioner is aggrieved with this order as
such she has been restricted to enter her own
house which she has purchased by her own
money and resources and lived for more than 11
years.

s. That there are several matrimonial disputes

between the same parties pending before
Lucknow Courts. (A typed copy of list of the
cases pending between the parties at various
Courts at Lucknow is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE P-5 at page 62 to 66)

6. GROUNDS FOR TRANSFER:

The Petitioner carves leave of this Hon’ble Court for

transfer on the following, inter alia, grounds specifically set

 11
out herein after, each of which are without prejudice to

one another: -

A. Because in the matter of Reena Mehra vs. Rohit Rai

Mehra & Another [2003] INSC 21 (24 January 2003),

Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the transfer of

Civil suit between husband and wife considering the

matter to be connected with matrimonial dispute of the

parties from the Court of Tis Hazari New Delhi to
Mumbai.

B. Because in the matter of Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish

Nigam on 9 March, 2017, Transfer petition (Civil) No.

1912 of 2014 it was observed that,

“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..” (emphasis

supplied)

C. Because the Family Act, 1984 is a special act and

provides for a special procedure for speedy settlement

of disputes. Further, he urged that the object of the Act

is to adopt an approach, which is radically different

 12
from that procedure and process of civil courts in

ordinary civil proceedings. In fact, the Act itself

envisages that the powers of civil courts can be

exercised by the Family Courts so as to enable the latter

to deliver justice.

D. Because the Family Courts Act has an overriding effect

by virtue of Section 20 of the Act, and this has been

affirmed by the Bombay High Court in Romila Jaidev
Shroff (supra) and Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, (2010)

1 SCC 666. Further, the Act does not confine or

distinguish matters on the basis of their pecuniary

value, rather it is on the basis of area/population. The

non-inclusion of a pecuniary jurisdiction clause in the
Act endeavours to promote an unlimited pecuniary

jurisdiction. It was submitted that the Act seeks to

provide for exclusivity of jurisdiction to Family Courts

with respect to matters provided therein. Such

exclusive jurisdiction has been provided to the Family

Courts under the Preamble and Sections 7 and 8 of the

Family Courts Act 1984. On the interpretation of the

term District Court in Sections 7 and it is submitted that

it cannot be given a universal meaning. Since the Act

does not define District Court; regard may be had to the

definition in CPC by virtue of Section 2(e) of the Act.

 13
Although the CPC does not define District Court,

Section 2(4) of the CPC defines District to include the

local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of a

High Court.

E. Because in the matter of Amina Bharatram versus

Sumant Bharatram & Others, it held that once it is so,

then Clause (f) of Explanation to Section 7(1) of the

Family Courts Act would apply squarely and the claim
of the plaintiff in the present civil suit would be of a

nature which the Family Court has been vested with

exclusive jurisdiction.

F. The petitioner is living with her widow mother (senior

citizen) aged about 67 years and looking after her as
well as her minor children at Lucknow (Uttar-Pradesh)

after she was compelled to leave her own house 100-S,

Sector 7, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi-110025 on 28.12.2013.

The petitioner is getting it quite cumbersome to go to

Delhi from Lucknow to defend her case leaving behind

her minors and ailing widow mother. The petitioner is

getting it quite cumbersome to come to Delhi to defend

her case on every date and that is also loss of her

opportunity and her cases at Lucknow with which she

is currently maintaining herself and her children. Since

the matter is before the District Court and matrimonial

 14
in nature and the petitioner is necessary party, her

personal appearance is necessary on each date.

G. Because the petitioner is maintaining herself with great

difficulty. The expenses of litigation and travel expenses

are an extra burden upon the petitioner, who has no

regular source of income. She is largely dependent on

the pension and resources of her widow mother to take

care of expenses of her minors. The respondent is not
paying any maintenance to the petitioner and her

minors even when meagre amounts are ordered by the

Lower Courts.

H. Because there are already several matrimonial cases

between the parties pending before the Courts of

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh with the similar facts and

disputes. If the Declaratory Suit filed by the respondent is

also got transferred to Lucknow, then it would cause no

harm or prejudice to the respondent.

I. Because the distance between Delhi and Lucknow is

about 500 Kilometres and it takes about 11 Hours to go.

Since the matter is before the District Court, her

personal appearance is necessary. Apart from

inconvenience and the travel expenses, her safety is also

at stake during her travel to and from Delhi. The

respondent lodges false and frivolous cases against any

 15
person, family members and well-wishers helping or

supporting her, and due to which no one is there to

accompany her to contest cases at New Delhi.

J. Because the petitioner has very limited source of

income inasmuch as repaying the EMI of home loan of

the suit property. She will not be able to bear litigation

expenses at such a distant place as Delhi. The petitioner

is not able to bear any travel expenses on every date
before the Saket Court, Delhi.

K. Because the petitioner is under great emotional and

mental stress due to the unfortunate developments,

particularly after loss of her father on 06.10.2015. The

petitioner is not having any emotional, moral and
financial support from anyone apart from her widow

mother.

L. Because the petitioner’s son is now in 10th Standard and

requires help from his mother for his studies. The

daughter of petitioner is growing teen age girl about 13

years old, having speech related issues and needs

constant presence of her mother. Leaving minors

behind to contest the case from Lucknow to New Delhi

every time is against their interest. It is pertinent to

mention that all the matrimonial cases are pending

before the courts of Lucknow between the same parties.

 16
7. That the petitioner herein states that she has not filed
any other similar transfer petition before this Hon’ble
Court.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a. transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as “Suresh

Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New
Delhi to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family
Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; AND/OR

b. Pass such other order or further orders, which this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

FILED BY:
Drawn by:

Drawn on: 10.02.2022

Filed on: 19.02.2022

Place: New Delhi [AISHWARYA PATHAK]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY …..PETITIONER
VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY
….RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Transfer Petition is confined only to

the pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and
the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken upon
therein or relied upon in the Transfer Petition being filed. It is
further certified that the copies of the documents/annexures
attached to the Transfer Petition are necessary to answer the
question of law raised in the petition or to make out ground
urged in the special leave petition for consideration of this
Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of the
instructions given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in
support of the Transfer Petition.

FILED BY:
Drawn By:

Filed on: 19.02.2022

Place: New Delhi
[AISHWARYA PATHAK]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SOMA PANDEY ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

SURESH PANDEY …RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Soma Pandey D/o Shri Late Raj Nath Pandey, aged about 42 years,
Resident of 16/190, Lolai, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226028, presently at
New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the accompanying Transfer Petition and as

such, I am well conversant with the facts and records of the case and
therefore competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the Synopsis and List of Dates from
running Pages B to K and the Transfer Petition from Pages 01 to 16
and all the Interim Applications, have been drafted under my
instructions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and rest are submissions made on the basis of legal advice
rendered to me which I believe to be correct.

3. I further state that all the Annexures to this Transfer Petition are true
copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
 19
VERIFICATION:

I the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of

the aforesaid affidavit from para 1 to 3 are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, no part of it is false nothing material has been concealed
there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 11th day of September 2023

DEPONENT
 20
ANNEXURE P-1
Supreme Court of India

Reena Mehra vs Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr on 24 January, 2003

Author: B Kumar

Bench: R.C.Lahoti, Brijesh Kumar.

CASE NO.:

Transfer Case (civil) 20 of 2002

PETITIONER:

Reena Mehra

RESPONDENT:

Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2003 BENCH:

R.C.Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar,J.
 21
This is a transfer petition filed by the wife of the respondent no.1

Rohit Rai Mehra praying for transfer of suit No.680 of 1999 pending

in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the City Civil

Court, Mumbai. The suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 for

Permanent Injunction in respect of Flat No.341, Pragati Apartments,

New Delhi, which, according to the petitioner, was purchased by

her father Satyapal Khanna and was gifted to her and she is the

owner of the said flat. According to the petitioner, the suit has been

filed with a view to harass the petitioner due to the matrimonial

dispute between the parties.

According to the petitioner, her marriage with respondent no.1

Rohit Rai Mehra took place in 1991 in Delhi whereafter she started

living in her matrimonial home at 234, New Rajendra Nagar, New

Delhi along with her husband namely, respondent no.1 and his

parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that sufficient jewellery

and cash was given in the marriage still the demand for a car was

made and harassment of the petitioner started. Ultimately, a few

months after the marriage a car was also presented to the

respondent no.1 but the harassment continued. According to the

petitioner, things came down to physical assaults and mental torture

 22
caused by the respondent no.1 and her in-laws, more so, after she

gave birth to a child. Ultimately, her father Satyapal Khanna,

respondent no.2, purchased a flat for her namely, flat no.341, Pragati

Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and gifted it to her and also

executed a power of attorney in her favour. It is also her case that

the flat has been transferred in her name. She and respondent no.1

shifted and started living in the said apartment but sometime later

her in-laws, it is said, sold their flat in New Rajendra Nagar and

purchased a flat nearby namely flat no.305, Pragati Apartments,

Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. She also gave birth to a female child. Her

case further is that on 6.11.1997 she was given a severe physical

assault but she continued to live with respondent no.1 in her flat.

The allegations further go to indicate that the brother of the

respondent no.1 had even extended threat to her to kidnap her son

which scared her to the extent that she left Delhi and went to her

parents at Bombay wherefrom she informed to respondent no.1

about the whole position. Immediately thereafter on 3.1.1998

respondent no.1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in

Delhi Court. The petitioner moved this Court by filing a Transfer

Petition (C) No.596 of 1998 which was allowed on 3.8.1998 and the
 23
case was transferred to Bombay observing that the case deserved to

be transferred to Family Court, Mumbai. The petitioner also filed

certain criminal cases in connection with the demand of dowry etc.

against respondent no.1 and her in-laws and the proceedings

whereof have been initiated in Bombay courts. The effort made by

respondent no.1 for quashing of the FIR failed and the petition

moved by respondent no.1 was dismissed by the Bombay High

Court.

It is submitted that as a sequel of what has been going on between

the parties, respondent no.1 filed the Suit No.680 of 1999 for

Permanent Injunction in respect of Flat No.341, Pragati Apartments,

Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by impleading the father of the petitioner

only as a defendant. The petitioner, being the owner of the flat

moved for being impleaded as a party in the said suit. The car which

was presented to respondent no.1 was seized and the Flat No.341,

Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was also sealed by

the Bombay police. Ultimately, it is alleged that respondent no.1

succeeded in getting the sealed apartment opened, the car however

seized from respondent no.1 was delivered possession of to the

petitioner. In proceedings which were going on regarding opening

 24
of the sealed apartment at Delhi in one of them the petitioner was

even ordered to be present personally on some of the dates. In the

meantime the respondent no.1 filed yet another Suit No.210 of 2000

for mandatory injunction in respect of same Flat no.341, Pragati

Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi impleading the father of the

petitioner as defendant However, the subsequent Suit No.210 of

2000 was withdrawn by respondent no.1. The order passed by the

appellate court directing the petitioner to be positively present in the

Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Delhi was also ultimately set aside

by the High Court in Civil Revision No.815 of 2000. The Civil

Revision preferred by the respondent no.1 against the order of the

Civil Judge ordering impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant

in Suit No.680 of 1999 was also dismissed. It is submitted that in the

background indicated above the petitioner is finding it very difficult

to cope with the harassing attitude and activities of respondent no.1

and to contest the cases initiated by him at Delhi. It is submitted that

this all is being done by respondent no.1 to cause as much

discomfort, harassment, harm and injury as possible to the

petitioner. It appears to us that though it is a suit no doubt relating

to the property namely, flat no.341, Pragati Apartments, Paschim

 25
Vihar, New Delhi, but it is not unconnected with the matrimonial

disputes going on between the parties. The suit filed for restitution

of conjugal rights which was transferred to Bombay was later on not

prosecuted. The second suit filed again for mandatory injunction in

respect of the same property at Delhi was also withdrawn after the

petitioner had moved this Court in connection therewith. In the suit

in question which has been filed by the respondent no.1 the

petitioner was not impleaded as a party but on an application the

court directed impleadment of the petitioner as defendant in the

said suit. Petitioner and Respondent no.1 had started residing in Flat

No.341, Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi which

nowhere has been indicated to have been purchased by the

respondent no.1. The petitioner's case is clear that she is the owner

of the flat which her father had purchased for her so that she could

peacefully live in that flat. But in the atmosphere of scare and fear

she had to leave that apartment and to go to her parents at Bombay.

No doubt the rights of the parties shall be subject matter of decision

on merits in the suit proceedings but prima facie in view of the

order passed by the Civil Court for impleadment of the petitioner as

one of the defendants in the suit which order was also upheld by the
 26
High Court shows that she is a necessary party to the proceedings

and has certainly something to do with the proceedings relating to

the flat. All these disputes including the one relating to the flat are

as a consequence of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Some

proceedings initiated by the petitioner at Bombay are continuing

there and the effort made by respondent no.1 for quashing of such

proceedings in Bombay High Court failed. They have to contest

those proceedings at Bombay. The petitioner has also faced many

cases either filed against her or which she had to file in course of

proceedings between the parties. In one of the cases filed by

respondent no.1 earlier relating to the restitution of conjugal rights,

this Court had taken the view that the case deserved to be

transferred to Bombay.

Considering all the facts and circumstances and the background

given above, we feel that it would serve the ends of justice better if

Suit No.680 of 1999 pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is

transferred to the City Civil Court, Bombay so that the petitioner

may have a fair opportunity to defend herself in those proceedings.

In the result, we allow the petition and transfer the case namely, Suit

No.680 of 1999 pending in the Court of Tis Hazari, Delhi to the City
 27
Civil Court, Mumbai as prayed. The Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi

shall transmit the record of Suit No.680 of 1999 forthwith to the City

Civil Court, Mumbai. Any observation made in this order is limited

to the purpose of deciding this transfer petition and shall not affect

the merits of the case of the parties in any other proceedings either

way.

//TRUE TYPED COPY//

 28
ANNEXURE P-2
HSBC Logo

Suresh Pandey 15-A, First Floor

Hauz Khas Village Disb date: 29/10.03

Delhi 110016 Date: 28/09/03 Dear Mr./Ms If not applicable

Partially Acceptance for Home Loan Account # 052 295 854 220

We are pleased to advise an in Principle approval, of your Home

Loan Application dated

(will help in MI) for the purchase of

• A plot of land

• Self construction

• Ready property

• Resale property

• Refinance from ...............................

Flat no. 100 S, Sect. 7 &, Jasola Vihar

New Delhi 110044 .................... as per Terms and Conditions given

below:

Home Loan Account number:

Terms
 29
Property price Rs ......................................

(signature of Suresh Pandey illegible, Signature of Soma Pandey in

Hindi legible)

Sanctioned Loan Amount Rs. 18,35,000/- ..............

Balance Amount payable Rs .....................................

Security Equitable Mortgage of the Property Period of Loan 240

months

Type of interest rate Fixed/Floating (strike off n.a.rate)

Current interest rate p.a. 8.50% (to two decimal places Equated

monthly instalment (EMI) Rs. 15,928/Processing Fee : Rs. 13,762/-

Date of First Instalment : 15-11.2003 Date of Last Instalment : 15-10-

2023

Security required:

Original Deeds of the property

....................post dated cheques drawn in favour of “The Hongkong

and Shanghai

Banking Corporation Limited” A/c Home Loan Mr./Ms ....................... for

Rs ...............each.

OR
 30
Letter of authority to enable us to debit your HSBC account every

month for the EMI amount along 5 undated cheques drawn in

favour of “The Hongkong and and Shanghai Banking Corporation

Limited” A/c Home Loan

Mr./Ms………………….for Rs…………..each

Conditions:

1. Late payment charges

A penal rate of 2% over the rate of interest applicable on the

outstanding amount is payable in case of delayed instalments.

2. Pre-payment charges

A pre-payment charge of 2% is payable on the amount prepaid

over 25% of the loan amount in every financial year.

Prepayment is allowed only after six months following the

loan disbursal.

3. Draw down of Loan

The loan amount should be availed within 30 days from the

date of this letter. The loan sanction may also be kept open at

the sole discretion of HSBC beyond 30 days, subject to our

receipt of the “Acceptance copy ” of this letter (duly signed by

you within 30 days from the date of this letter)

 31
4. Interest rates

Interest rates are subject to change at any point of time at the

sole discretion of the Bank.

Please sign this letter in duplicate to confirm your acceptance

of the above. The second copy will be returned for your

records within 3 working days after the disbursal of the loan.

The co-applicant (if any) will also have to be present in the

Bank for signing the legal documentation kit.

Assuring you of our best services at all times.

Yours faithfully

Signature illegible (Manager)

Accepted above terms and conditions

Signature of Suresh Pandey illegible Signature of Soma Pandey

legible

Applicant Co-applicant (seal for non-individuals)

Date: ..............

Place...............

The Hondkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 001 India

 32
Telephone : 371600 Pac simile: 91-11- 3719702 Telex: 031-65053 HSBC

IN

Telegrams: Hongbank New Delhi

Incorporated In Hong Kong SAR with Limited liability.

//TRUE TYPED COPY//

 33
ANNEXURE P-3

Stamp paper Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) PAN no.

AIGPP5674F File no:

Certified : .....

And Transfer Rs.....

Rupee ......................

Desired Vide

Challan Dated: 30/10/03

27035

SALE DEED

Sale Deed for Rs. 18,00,000/Stamp Duty @ 3% Rs. 54,000/-

Corporation Tax @ 3% Rs. 54,000/Total Rs.1,08,000/-

This Sale Deed is made on this...................... day of October 2003 by

MRS NEELU KESHWANI w/o SH.PRAKASH KESHWANI R/O P-

26, SOUTH extension PART-II, NEW DELHI acting for an on behalf

of allottee SH. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL S/O SH. DARI MAL,

R/o C-42, KRISHNA PARK, NAJAFGARH ROAD, NEW DELHI

110044, having allotted by DDA vide File No. 175 (101)

 34
91/JL/SFS/III (hereinafter called the “VENDOR”. Which

expression shall unless repugnant to the context, include his legal

heirs, legal representatives, executors, attorneys, assignees,

nominees and successors) of the First Part.

IN FAVOUR OF

MRS. SOMA PANDEY W/o SH. SURESH PANDEY and D/O SH.

RAJ NATH PANDEY, R/o 9/6, PANT NAGAR, JANGPURA

EXTENSION, NEW DELHI 110014 (Hereinafter called the

“VENDEE”, which expression shall mean and include her legal

heirs, successors, administrators, executors, legal representatives

and assignees, etc) of the Second Part.

WHEREAS SH. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL is the allottee of SFS

CAT-III FLAT No. 100-S, ON SECOND FLOOR IN SECTOR-7,

JASOLA, NEW DELHI, having allotted by DDA vide File No. 175

(101) 91/JL/SFS/III (Hereinafter referred to as the “PROPERTY”)

Thumb impression and signature

20,000 X 4 15,000X1 1000X1

96000/Soma Pandey (House wife) w/o Suresh Pandey Pant Nagar,

Jangpura, Delhi -14 PNG Flat, No.100 Sec. No.7, Jasola Stam of
 35
Mr.Hari P. Sharma Treasury Officer O/O The Div Com. Delhi Tis

Hazari Court Complex.

THUMB IMPRESSION AND SIGNATURE OF MRS NEELU

KESHWANI AND MRS SOMA PADNEY

Regd. No. 9885 [Date 31/10/2003]

Deed Related Detail

Land
Deed Detail
Name: SALE WITHIN MC
Tehsil/Sub Tehsil Sub Registrar V Area of Building Sq Feet
Village/
AREA City Jasola Building Type

Place (Segment) Jasola

Money Related
Soil Type Detail
Residential
Value: 1,800,000.00 Rupees 144,00.00 Value of Stamp Duty
Area of Soil 1,200.00 Sq feet
Rupees

Value of Registration
Personal by Sh/Smt. Fee 100.00
Neelu Rupee
Keshwani S/o, W/o Sh.Prakash

Keshwani R/O P-26, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi

31/10/2003 day Friday between the hours of

(signature illegible)

Signature of Presenter Registrar/ Sub Registrar

Sub registrar V Delhi/ New Delhi

 36
Information Admitted by the said Shri/Smt/Km Neelu Kesarwani

and Shri/Smt/ Km Soma Pandey

Who is/are identified by Shri./ Smt. N.I Thadani, S/O D/O Tulja

Ram, R/O 69A, Pkt-A, Sukhdev ND and Shri/Smt Shailendra

Singh, S/O W/o D/o K. P. Singh,

R/O 174 Aligajpur ND

(Illegible) No.11 is known to me. Contents of the document.

Contents of the documents explained to the parties who understand

the conditions and admint them as correct Having satisfied myself

that this document was duly executed by Sri/Smt/Km. Neelu

Keshwani

In his officially (Illegible), his attendance and signature are

dispensed with and document is submitted to register.

Vendor (s) Mortgagor (s) admit(s) prior receipt of entire

consideration Rupees 18,00,000/- Rupees eighteen lakh only.

The balance of entire consideration of Rs .............. Rupees

...................... has been paid to the Vendor (s) Mortgage (s) by

Sh./Smt. Soma Pandey S/o, W/o Suresh Pandey, 916 Pant Ngr,

Jang Pura ND R/o N.I Thadhani, Shailendra

 37
Vendee (s)/Mortgagee (s) in the presence. He/They is/are also

identified by the aforesaid witnesses.

(signature illegible)

Date:31/10/2003

Registrar/Sub Registrar

Sub Registrar

Delhi/New Delhi

Signature Soma Pandey in Hindi along with fingerprints

Seal of registrar

Stamp of Rs. 20,000/-

02CC 7352J0

2. That the VENDOR assures the VENDEE that her right title and

interest as owner of the above said PROPERTY along with all

the rights, privilegdes, easements and appurtenances

whatsoever to the abovesaid PROPERTY belonging or usually

held therewith including all the estates rights titles and

interests whatsoever is the abovesaid PROPERTY is absolute

and the VENDOR hereby seal, assign, transfer and convey the

aforesaid PROPERTY TO HAVE AND HOLD the same to the

VENDEE, ABSOLUTELY & FOREVER, who shall hereinafter

 38
become the absolute owner of the abovesaid PROPERTY and

shall enjoy the above rights and possession etc, whatsoever

without any other claim or lien or hindrance from the

VENDOR or from the legal heirs of the VENDOR.

3. That the VENDOR has delivered the actual, physical ownership

and possession of the abovesaid PROPERTY under sale to the

VENDEES at the time of signing of this Sale Deed and the

VENDEE has taken the Physical possession of the abovesaid

property.

4. That the VENDEE shall hereinafter hold, use, enjoy as she like

and sell or make any alterations or additions in the said

PROPERTY as her own PROPERTY without any any hindrance,

claim or demand whatever from the VENDOR.

5. That the aforesaid PROPERTY is already Freehold as stated

hereinabove by the DDA. Hence prior permission to sell the

said PROPERTY is NOT REQUIRED to be obtained from DDA.

[signature of Neelu Keshwani (illegible) and Soma Pandey (legible

in Hindi)]

P-3

Illegible stamp details

 39
date 22.10.2003

Illegible signature

(HARI P. SHARMA)

Treasury Officer

o/o The Div. Com. Delhi

Tis Hazari Court Complex

Stamp amount 20,000/- (twenty thousand rupees)

02CC 735209

6. That all the prior taxes, liabilities, bills, etc, whatsoever upto

delivering the physical possession of the abovesaid PROPERTY

shall be paid by the VENDOR but after the execution of this

Sale Deed shall be paid by the VENDEE. If any dues prior to

this date before handing over the physical possession to the

VENDEE of the said PROPERTY is claimed by DDA or any

other Government agency the same shall be borne by the

VENDOR.

7. That the VENDEE shall abide by all the bye-law, Rules and

Regulation of MCD and all other local bodies/authorities in

respect of the abovesaid property.

 40
8. That the VENDEE can get the PROPERTY transferred and

mutated in her own name in the record of MCD, BSES Rajdhani

Power Limited, Delhi Jal Board or any other concerned

authorities, whenever necessary of the basis of this Sale Deed or

its certified true copy.

9. That this Sale is subject to all the terms and conditions laid

down in Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed and the VENDEE will

abide by all the terms and conditions of the Sale

Deed/Conveyance Deed.

10. That the VENDOR is left with no rights, interest and titles in

the abovesaid PROPERTY after execution of this Sale Deed and

the same shall be used and enjoyed by the VENDEE absolutely

and forever.

[Signature of Neetu Keshwani (illegible) and Soma Pandey

(legible in Hindi)

Stamp value Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees)

02BB 504088

11. That all disputes or differences between the VENDOR and the

VENDEE which cannot be amicably resolved shall be referred

to the arbitrator as per the provisions contained in the

 41
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Venue of arbitration

shall be at New Delhi.

12. That the VENDOR assures that she is absolute owner of the said

PROPERTY hereby conveys having a valid subsisting and

marketable title as owner and the VENDEE shall maintain the

same as owner.

13. That all the expenses of the Sale Deed such as Stamp Duty,

Registration Fee, Typing Charges and other miscellaneous

expenses have been borne by the VENDEE.

14. That the VENDOR has handed over the entire previous original

documents relating to the abovesaid PROPERTY to the

VENDEE.

15. That both the VENDOR and the VENDEE are Indian Nationals.

[signature of Neelu Keshwani (illegible) and Soma Pandey (legible

in Hindi)]

Illegible seal details

date 22.10.2003

Illegible signature (HARI P. SHARMA)

Treasury Officer

o/o The Div. Com. Delhi

 42
Tis Hazari Court Complex

Stamp of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand)

16. That the courts at Delhi, New Delhi only shall have exclusive

jurisdiction.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The VENDOR And The VENDEE Have

Signed This Sale Deed On This Date, Month And Year First Above

Written.

Witnesses Signature illegible

1. Signature illegible VENDOR

(N.I. Thandani)

S/o Tulja Ram

69-A, Pkt-A,

Sukhdev Vihar Signature in Hindi

2. Signature illegible

Shailendra Singh

S/o K.P. Singh VENDEE

174 Aligajpur, New Delhi

/5 22.10.2003

Reg. No. Reg. Year Book No.

 43
9585 2003-2004 1

Photograph Photograph Photograph

1st Party Seller 2nd Party Buyer Witness

1st Party Seller Neelu Keshwani

2nd Party Buyer Soma Pandey

Witness N.I. Thadani Shailendra Singh

Certificate

Registration No. 9885 in Book No. 1 Vol. 1.

Page 128 on this date 31/10/2003 day today

And left thumb impression have been taken in my presence.

Signature illegible

Sub-Registrar

Sub-Registrar V

New Delhi

Date 31.10.2003

Seal

//TRUE TYPED COPY//

 44
ANNEXURE P-4

IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV JAIN, ADJ, SOUTH-EAST,

SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

Suresh Pandey

S/o Kapil Deo Pandey

R/o Flat No. 100-S,

Second Floor,

Sector-7, Jasola,

New Delhi-110025 …Plaintiff

Versus

Soma Pandey

W/o Suresh Pandey

R/o C-1204, Indira Nagar,

Lucknow

Also available at:-

C-1246, Indira Nagar,

Lucknow. …Respondent

SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

 45
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the Plaintiff has been residing at the above noted

address for the last about 13 years. The petitioner is

working as Associate Executive Producer, On Air Planner

with TV Today Network, India Today which is a renowned

media house running several news and other channels.

2. That the Defendant to the present suit is wife of the

Plaintiff. The parties to the present suit got married on

22.01.2003. At the contemporaneous time, the Plaintiff was

working as Video Editor with BBC World Service Trust and

was earning around Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five

Thousand Only) per month. The Defendant, on the other

hand, was a student of a P.G.D.B.A. diploma course from

ICFAI, Bangalore. The Defendant got married to the

Plaintiff while she was still a student and continued her

studies after the marriage as well. It is pertinent to note that

the Defendant had no source of income at the

contemporaneous time.

3. That, after the marriage, the parties to the present suit

started residing together at rented accommodation at Hauz

 46
Khas Village, New Delhi and briefly at a rented

accommodation at Jangpura Extension, New Delhi.

Needless to add that the Plaintiff, being the sole bread

earner, used to pay and bear the rent and all the necessary

household expenses.

4. That sometime in September 2003, the Plaintiff decided to

purchase a house, and for the said purpose, located a

property on sale at Flat No. 100-S, Second Floor, Sector - 7,

Jasola, New Delhi - 110025 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Suit Property”).At that time, the Suit Property was owned

by one Mi. Pawan Kumar Bansal by virtue of Conveyance

Deed dated 15.02.1999, registered as document No. 829,

Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 69 on page No. 100 to 101 on

09.04.1999. The owner of the Suit Property agreed to sell the

Suit Property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees

Eighteen Lacs Only).

5. That for the purpose of purchasing the Suit Property,

the Plain, applied for a Home Loan with the Hongkong

and Shanghai banking Corporation Limited (hereinafter

rcfcrrcd to as “HSBC”)
 47
6. That accordingly, as per the requirement of HSBC, the

Plaintiff got a title search conducted of the Suit Property

and accordingly got a report dated 26.09.2003 from an

Advocate regarding clear and marketable title of the Suit

Property.

7. That based on the financial records and financial strength of

the Plaintiff, on 28.09.2003, HSBC sanctioned a loan of Rs.

18,35,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Thirty Five Thousand

Only) (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Amount”) to the

Plaintiff in loan account No. 052-29854-220. It is pertinent to

note that the said loan account was solely held in the name

of the Plaintiff.

8. That HSBC agreed to disburse the Loan Amount not before

29.10.2003. Accordingly, the date of executing and

registering the Sale Deed with the erstwhile owner was

fixed as 31.10.2003.

9. That, however, the Plaintiff had to go to Dubai on

10.10.2003 for some official work for a month and

accordingly it was decided that the Sale Deed will be

executed and registered in the name of the Defendant, who

 48
will hold it in a fiduciary capacity, being the wife of the

Plaintiff, towards the Plaintiff.

10. That accordingly. The plaintiff left India towards Dubai on

10.10.2003 with clear instructions to the Defendant to

receive the Loan Amount from HSBC, disburse the monies

to the erstwhile owner, execute and register the Sale Deed

for the Suit Property, and hold the Suit Property on behalf

of the Plaintiff.

11. That on 22.10.2003, the Plaintiffs father purchased the stamp

paper for execution of the Sale Deed on 22.10.2003 in the

name of the Defendant. However, the back side of the said

stamp paper specifically mentions that the Defendant is a

“House Wife”, which clearly shows the intention of the

parties that the Suit Property was to be purchased by the

Plaintiff and held by the Defendant in a fiduciary capacity,

being a house wife. It is also pertinent to note that the

Plaintiff had applied and paid for Insurance for the Suit

Property on 28.09.2003.

12. That on 29.10.2003, HSBC disbursed the Loan Amount in

the name of the Plaintiff, and accordingly issued a demand

 49
draft bearing No. 140203 dated 29.10.2003 for an amount of

Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Only) (hereinafter

referred to as the “Total Sale Consideration”) in favour of

Mrs. Neelu Keswani (Power of attorney of Mr. Pawan

Kumar Bansal) and handed over the same to the Defendant.

The Defendant was instructed to hand over the cheque to

Mrs. Neelu Keswani on 31.10.2003 at the time of execution

and registration of the Sale Deed.

13. That on 31.10.2003, the Defendant executed and registered a

Sale Deed dated 31.10.2003 registered at registration No.

9885, Book No. 1, Volume No. 3634 at page No. 128 to 135

(hereinafter referred to as “Saic Deed”) and the Defendant

handed over the cheque to Mrs. Neelu Keswani, as

instructed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs father was present

with the Defendant at the time of registration and in fact

bore all the expenses of registration of the Sale Deed.

14. That in the aforesaid manner, the Plaintiff purchased the

Suit Property and became the sole and absolute owner of

the same, though the same was in his wife’s name, the

Defendant herein. The funds for purchasing the Suit

 50
Property were completely provided by the Plaintiff in the

aforesaid manner. It is emphasised that the Defendant was

a house wife at the contemporaneous time and had no

contribution to the corpus of the Total Sale Consideration. It

was a clear understanding that the Suit Property will be

only held by the Defendant in her fiduciary capacity

towards the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff will continue to

be the real and de facto owner of the same.

15. That the Plaintiff over the period of next 7-8 months repaid

the aforesaid loan account No. 052-29854-220 by using every

possible source and avenue of funds available to him. The

Plaintiff had to take various friendly loans of small amounts

from family, friends and relatives, which were subsequently

repaid by him with great effort and difficulty. In fact, the

Plaintiff had to take another loan from HSBC at a reduced

equated monthly instalments (“EMIs”) so that the Plaintiff

can repay the same. The Plaintiff enlisted the Defendant as a

co-applicant in this subsequent loan account on the

insistence of the officials of HSBC since the Sale Deed was

in her name.
 51
16. That in 2007, the Plaintiff had to take another loan from

HSBC, which was granted in the same aforesaid loan

account No. 052- 29854-220. Till date, the Plaintiff is paying

substantial amounts from his own earnings and income to

service and repay the aforesaid pending loan accounts with

HSBC. It is pertinent to note that all the original title

documents of the Suit Property, including the Sale Deed,

are in possession of HSBC as mortgage for the

aforementioned loans.

17. That on 28.12.2013, the Defendant left the Suit Property

with all her belongings and children and went to Lucknow

to live with her parents. The Defendant has been living with

heT parents till date and has been out of possession of the

Suit Property since 28.12.2013. Matrimonial disputes have

cropped up between the parties due to which the Defendant

has initiated several false and mala fide litigation against the

Plaintiff in Lucknow as well as in Delhi. The Plaintiff is not

averring the gruesome details of the said litigation since the

same is of less relevance for the present suit. The Plaintiff

 52
reserves his right to aver the same if required at a

subsequent stage.

18. That on 03.06.2016, at about 11 p.m. when the Plaintiff was

at Cannaught Place, New Delhi, and busy in some of his

pre-scheduled engagements, the Plaintiff receive a call from

the Defendant on his mobile informing the Plaintiff that she

was standing in front of the Suit Property. She asked about

the whereabouts of the Plaintiff over the phone. The

Plaintiff apprised the Defendant that he would take time to

comeback to the suit property. The Plaintiff did not go to

the Suit Property on the said night.

19. That the Plaintiff called one of his neighbours in the

morning on 04.06.2016, when the Plaintiff was informed

that the Defendant was seen standing in the balcony of the

Suit Property. It is pertinent to note that, as mentioned

above, the Defendant is not in possession of the Suit

Property since 28.12.2013 as she had left the same with all

her belongings to reside at Lucknow. The Defendant has not

been in possession of the keys to the Suit Property, which

has been in sole possession of the Plaintiff. Thus, from the

 53
information given by the neighbour, it was apparent that

the Defendant had broken open the lock of the Suit

Property and had illegally gained forced entry thereto.

20. On receiving such information, the Plaintiff immediately

rushed to, and reached the P.S. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and

informed the police about the said incident. In view of the

aforesaid information provided by the Plaintiff, the police

made an entry in their prescribed register and deputed

officials to accompany the Plaintiff to the Suit Property.

21. That when the Plaintiff reached the Suit Property with the

police officials, the Defendant, and a man subsequently

discovered to be one Mr. Samanwaya Dwivedi, were found

to have illegally broken open the door of the Suit Property

and had gain forced entry of the same.

22. Upon entering the house, the Plaintiff found that a lot of

valuables, money, original documents, passport and

material belonging to the complainant, and having

evidentiary value were stolen and/or destroyed. The locks

put on the Suit Property was broken open and removed by

the Defendant. It is pertinent to note that the old passport of

 54
the Plaintiff has also been stolen/destroyed by the

Defendant. The Plaintiff is filing photographs of a few

pages of the said passport, which were taken by the Plaintiff

prior to the said incident. The Plaintiff reserves his right to

initiate appropriate proceedings to recover all the

documents, property, valuables and monies stolen by the

Defendant once inquiry in the matter is completed.

23. That at the said time, the Defendant threatened to kill the

Plaintiff and also threatened to illegally sell the Suit

Property, which has been held by the Defendant in

fiduciary capacity. The Plaintiff has made a police

complaint dated 05.06.2016 to the SHO, PS. Sarita Vihar,

averting all the necessary details of the property

stolen/destroyed and the narration of the said incident. The

Plaintiff is vigorously pursuing the said police complaint

against the Defendant.

24. That due to the aforementioned incident, the true designs of

the Defendant have come to fore. The Plaintiff has a strong

apprehension that the Defendant is and will try again to

illegally and forcefully enter the Suit Property, thereby

 55
depriving the Plaintiff of his legal and lawful possession of

the Suit Property. Pursuant to the threats of the Defendant,

it is dear that the Defendant deems herself the real owner of

the Suit Property contrary to the factual reality as stated

above, with the mala fide intention of misappropriating the

property of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also apprehends that

the Defendant will illegally sell and/or create third party

interests in the Suit Property, thereby causing irreparable

injury to the Plaintiff.

25. That it is pertinent to note that the Defendant has, sometime

in March 2007, acquired Nepali citizenship without

relinquishing her Indian citizenship. The Plaintiff, on

acquiring such knowledge, confronted the Defendant and

asked her to relinquish one of the two citizenships but to no

avail. The Plaintiff has subsequently learnt that the

Defendant has acquired and retains both the citizenships so

that she can illegally enjoy the fruits of properties in India

as well as in Nepal.

26. That the Plaintiff is the real, de facto, sole and exclusive

owner of the Suit Property for which the Plaintiff has paid
 56
the consideration. The Suit Property was purchased by the

Plaintiff in the name of his wife, the Defendant herein,

because the Plaintiff was not in India at the relevant time.

The Defendant, being the wife of the Plaintiff, stood, and

continues to stand, in a fiduciary capacity towards the

Plaintiff. The Defendant had held, and continues to hold,

the Suit Property in such fiduciary capacity for the benefit

of the Plaintiff, who is the true owner of the Suit Property.

27. That in the aforesaid circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled

to a decree of declaration, declaring the Plaintiff to be the

exclusive and absolute owner of the property bearing Flat

No. 100-S, Second Floor, Sector - 7, Jasola, New Delhi -

110025. The Plaintiff is also entitled to a permanent

injunction against the Defendant thereby restraining the

Defendant, her agents and representatives from selling,

assigning, alienating, creating third party interest in the Suit

Property or from entering, interfering, disturbing and/or

intruding with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff of the

property bearing Flat No. 100-S, Second Floor, Sector - 7,

Jasola, New Delhi - 110025 to any third person.

 57
28. That cause of action arose on 28.12.2013 when the

Defendant left the Suit Property with all her belongings and

children and went to Lucknow to live with her parents.

Cause of action further arose when matrimonial disputes

cropped up between the parties due to which the Defendant

has initiated several false and malafide litigation Plaintiff.

Cause of action arose on 03.06.2016 when the Plaintiff

received a call from the Defendant on his mobile, informing

the Plaintiff that she was standing in front of die Suit

Property. Cause of action arose on 04.06.2016, when the

Plaintiff reached Suit Property with the police officials and

found the Defendant to have illegally broken open the door

of the Suit Property Cause of action also arose when the

Plaintiff found that a lot of valuables, money, original

documents, passport and material belonging to the

complainant, and having evidentiary value, were stolen

and/or destroyed by the Defendant. Cause of action further

arose when the Defendant threatened to kill the Plaintiff

and also threatened to illegally sell the Suit Property, which

has been held by the Defendant in fiduciary capacity. Cause

 58
of action also arose when the Plaintiff has made a police

complaint dated 05.06.2016 to the SHO, PS. Sarita Vihar,

and subsequent complaints. Cause of action in favour of the

Plaintiff, and against the Defendant, is continuing and

subsisting in nature and arises every day.

29. That the present suit has been filed within the prescribed

period of limitation.

30. That the Suit Property is located at Jasola, New Delhi. The

entire cause of action arose in Delhi. Hence this Hon’ble

Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide

the present suit.

31. That for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee is as

under:-

a) The Suit Property is valued at Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees

ninety lacs only) for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction

and the relief of declaration, on which appropriate court fee

has been affixed.

b) For the relief of permanent injunction against the

Defendants, the Suit is valued at Rs. 200/- (Rupees two

 59
hundred only)each and accordingly appropriate court fee is

being affixed.

32. Accordingly, this Hon’ble Court has pecuniary and

territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the

present suit.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, the Plaintiff

most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be

pleased to:

a) Pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the Plaintiff to be

the sole and absolute owners of the property bearing Flat

No. 100-S, Second Floor, Sector - 7, Jasola, New Delhi –

110025.

b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining

the Defendant, her agents and representatives from selling,

assigning, alienating, creating third party interest in the Suit

Property to any third party.

c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining

the Defendant, her agents and representatives from

 60
entering, interfering disturbing and/or intruding with the

peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in the Suit Property.

d) Pass an appropriate order/decree to award cost of the suit

in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants; and

e) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court

may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the case in favour of the Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Through

Rishabh Bansal Advocate for

the Plaintiff A1/10,

Pancnsheel Enclave, New

Delhi - 110017

New Delhi Date:

VERIFICATION

I, Suresh Pandey, the Plaintiff above named do hereby verified

that contents of Para 1 to Para 28 of above plaint are true and

correct to our personal knowledge and the legal submissions

made therein and contents of para 29 and para 32 of above

 61
plaint are based upon legal advice received and same are

believed to be true and correct. Last paragraph is a prayer

clause to this Hon’ble Court.

Verified at New Delhi on this 2019

Plaintiff

// TRUE TYPED COPY//

 62
ANNEXURE P-5

LIST OF CASES PENDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN

LUCKNOW COURTS

1. Criminal Revision 145 of 2016

Suresh Pandey vs. Principal Judge Family Court and Ors

Pending before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

(Against the order of maintainability of CrPC 125 maintenance

case).

2. Writ Petition 12233 of 2020

Shreyas Pandey (Minor) and Ors vs Suresh Pandey (Pending

before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench).

3. Criminal Revision 488 of 2020

Suresh Pandey vs Soma Pandey and Ors Before Hon’ble District

& Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

Criminal Revision in Domestic Violence Act, 2005

4. Application for recall of Criminal Revision no. 1057 of 2017

Soma Pandey and Ors vs Suresh Pandey

In Re: Suresh Pandey vs State of UP and ors,

 63
Pending before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

(Opposite party approached Hon’ble High Court against

dismissal of maintenance appeal under section 29 of DV Act.

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench and falsely

submitted before the court that the matter has become

infructuous to escape with the adverse interim orders.)

5. Complaint Case 1640 of 2014 (High Court Direction Matter)

Soma Pandey and Ors vs Suresh Pandey u/s 12 of DV Act,

Pending before Learned Special CJM Customs, Lucknow

Interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- granted on 12.02.2016

has not been complied with till date.

Directions of expeditious disposal of application under section

125 CrPC was passed vide order dated 12.12.2018in

MISS(L)_35764_2018, Soma Pandey and Ors vs State of U.P by

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, however,

opposite party deliberately delaying with frivolous applications

and non-compliance of interim orders for the minors. Applicant

has withdrawn her maintenance claims.

6. Misc Application u/s 31 & 32 of DV Act, 2005

 64
Soma Pandey & ors vs Suresh Pandey Before Learned Special

CJM Customs, Lucknow pending since 2017.

7. Complaint case 729/2016 u/s 406/420 of IPC,

Soma Pandey vs Suresh Pandey

Pending before Special CJM Customs, Lucknow

Opposite party on regular bail.

Opposite party delaying the matter.

8. FIR crime no. 319 of 2017 Police Station Wazirganj, District

Lucknow

Some Pandey vs Suresh Pandey

under sections u/s 504, 506, 509 of IPC & Section 66 & 72 of

IT Act, 2000 Cognizance taken by the Special CJM Customs,

Lucknow.

9. Regular Suit 292 of 2018 (Old number R.S. 1054 of 2014)

Soma Pandey vs Suresh Pandey,

Pending before Additional Principal Judge-9 Family Court

Lucknow Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 195 for divorce on the

ground of cruelty.
 65
Pending before Additional Principal Judge-9 Family Court

Lucknow Evidence not started even when issues framed in

20.10.2016 Fixed for 17.02.2022

10. Misc. 243 of 2018 old number 168c of 2016

Soma Pandey vs Suresh Pandey

Application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act in re: section

13 HMA Pending before Learned Additional Principal Judge-9

Family Court Lucknow Fixed for 17.02.2022.

11. Misc. 243 of 2018 old number 168c of 2016,

Soma Pandey vs Suresh Pandey

Application under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 In re:

section 13 HMA, 1955

Pending before Learned Additional Principal Judge-9 Family

Court Lucknow Fixed for 17.02.2022.

12.Misc Case No. 1061 of 2021 u/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Suresh Pandey vs Soma Pandey

Pending before Learned Additional Principal Judge-9 Family

Court Lucknow in section 13 HMA filed by Soma Pandey fixed

for 17.02.2022.
 66
13.Misc Case No. 69/2017 under section 25 of GW Act

Suresh Pandey vs Shreyas Pandey and Ors

Pending before Learned Additional Principal Judge-9 Family

Court Lucknow fixed for 15.02.2022.

14.Crl. case 79/2016 u/s 125 CrPC (High Court Direction Matter)

Soma Pandey and ors vs Suresh Pandey,

Pending before Learned Additional Principal Judge-8 Family

Court, Lucknow No compliance of interim order of Rs. 2000/-

pm for minors. fixed for 17.02.2022.

Directions for Expeditious disposal order with time frame of 6

months was passed vide order dated 06.11.2017 in

MISS(L)_26000_2017, by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court,

Lucknow Bench in Soma Pandey & Ors vs State of U.P. and Anr.

// TRUE TYPED COPY//

 67
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. __________ OF 2022
IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
[Praying for transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as
“Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi to
the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY …. RESPONDENT

APPLICATION SEEKING EX PARTE STAY

TO,
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the Petitioner is constrained to prefer the
present Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking transfer of CS
DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as “Suresh Pandey vs.
Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court,
 68
New Delhi to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

2. That the facts and circumstances leading to the

filing of present Petitioner and the grounds for
transfer have been set out in the Transfer Petition
in detail and the same are not repeated herein for
the sake of brevity. That the same may be
considered as part and parcel of the present
Application as well.

3. That the balance of convenience lies in favour of

the Petitioner and irreparable damage will be
caused to the Petitioner if stay of further
proceedings is not granted.

4. That the prima facie case is in favour of the

Petitioner herein.

5. That the present application is bona fide and in the

interest of justice.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a) Allow the present application and grant ad-interim

ex parte stay of further proceedings in CS DJ No.
211260 of 2016 titled as “Suresh Pandey vs. Soma
 69
Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld. Additional
District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi;
AND/OR
b) Pass such other order or further orders, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

FILED BY:
Drawn By:

Drawn on: 10.02.2022

Filed on: 19.02.2022
Place: New Delhi [AISHWARYA PATHAK]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 70
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. __________OF 2022
IN
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
[Praying for transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as
“Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi to
the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY …. RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

REFILING OF THE TRANSFER PETITION

TO,
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION ON BEHALF
OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

6. That the Petitioner is constrained to prefer the
present Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking transfer of CS
DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as “Suresh Pandey vs.
Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
 71
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court,
New Delhi to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

7. That the facts and circumstances leading to the

filing of present Petitioner and the grounds for
transfer have been set out in the Transfer Petition
in detail and the same are not repeated herein for
the sake of brevity. That the same may be
considered as part and parcel of the present
Application as well.

8. That the petitioner is filing the present transfer

petition and annexed several documents. There
were few documents that have been procured from
the other proceedings initiated by the respondent
against the petitioner. It took so much time as such
documents were procured from many different
forums and courts; therefore, it took so much time.

PRAYER

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

c) Condone 549 days delay in the refilling of the

Transfer Petition; AND/OR
d) Pass such other order or further orders, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
 72
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

FILED BY:
Drawn By:

Drawn on: 01.01.2023

Filed on: 01.01.2023
Place: New Delhi [AISHWARYA PATHAK]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
 73
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. of 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOMA PANDEY …. PETITIONER
VERSUS
SURESH PANDEY …. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT
I, Soma Pandey D/o Shri Late Raj Nath Pandey, aged about 42

years, Resident of 16/190, Lolai, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226028,

presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under:

1. That I am the petitioner in the accompanying Transfer Petition

and as such, I am well conversant with the facts and records of

the case and therefore competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have gone through the accompanying Interim Application

and state that the same are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

3. I further state that all the Annexures are true copies of their

respective originals.

DEPONENT
 74
VERIFICATION:

I the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the

contents of the aforesaid affidavit from para 1 to 3 are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge, no part of it is false nothing

material has been concealed there from.

Verified at New Delhi on this the 14th day of September 2023

DEPONENT
 75
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2022
[UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908]
[Praying for transfer of CS DJ No. 211260 of 2016 titled as
“Suresh Pandey vs. Soma Pandey”, pending in the Court of Ld.
Additional District Judge, Saket District Court, New Delhi to
the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh]
INDEX
SR.NO. PARTICULARS COPIES COURT FEE
1. Transfer Petition along with 1+3
supporting Affidavit
2. Application for seeking Ex-Parte 1+3
Stay.
3. Application for Condonation of 1+3
Delay in Refiling the Transfer
Petition
4.
Total Rs.

FILED BY:
Drawn By:

Drawn on: 10.02.2022

Filed on: 19.02.2022
Place: New Delhi [AISHWARYA PATHAK]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER