Supreme Court on Transfer of Petition under Section 21A of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, held that

Where, one party to a marriage filed a petition either for judicial separation under Section 10 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) or for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act, before a District Court having jurisdiction and thereafter the other party to the marriage, files a petition either under Section 10 or under Section 13, before the same District Court or in a different District Court in the same State or in a different State. Such types of cases, covered by Sub­section (1), are required to be dealt with, in the manner specified in Sub­section (2). Sub­section (2) of Section 21­A of the Act, has no independent existence de hors Sub­section (1). A combined reading of Sub­sections (1) and (2) would show that the procedure prescribed by Sub­section (2), applies only to situations covered by Sub­section (1).

In case of Shruti Kaushal Bisht Vs. Kaushal R. Bisht in Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2019, the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that the husband, first in point of time, filed petition for divorce and hence his case may fit into clause (a) of Sub­section (1) of section 21­A. But unfortunately for him, what was filed by the wife later in point of time was only a petition under Section 9 and not a petition either under Section 10 or under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the wife’s petition, though subsequent in point of time, does not fall under Clause (b) of Sub­section (1) of Section 21­A. As a consequence, Sub­section (1) of Section 21­A has no application to the case on hand, as the pre­conditions stipulated therein did not satisfy.

In any case Section 21­A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not divest this Court of the power available under Section 25(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). In Guda Vijalakshmi vs.Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry1, this Court rejected the contention that the substantive provision contained in Section 25 CPC is excluded by reason of Section 21 of the Act. The words “subject to the other provisions contained in this Act” appearing in Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were construed by this Court to indicate only those provisions which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. The only test prescribed in Section 25(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for the exercise of the power of transfer by this Court is “expediency for the ends of justice”. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the husband centering around Section 21­A(2)(b) cannot be countenanced.

To read the whole Judgement download the pdf given below