Making First-in-time Tick: The Bombay High Court Reaffirms Mandatory Transfer Under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 21-a
- ABSTRACT
In a significant procedural ruling, the Bombay High Court held that when two petitions under Sections 10 (judicial separation) or 13 (divorce) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) are filed by the same spouses in different courts, the later-filed petition must be transferred to the court where the first petition was instituted, in terms of Section 21-A. This article analyses the factual matrix, the statutory interpretation of Section 21-A in light of general transfer power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Court’s reasoning, and the implications for matrimonial jurisdiction and litigation strategy. The ruling reinforces the priority of the “first-in-time” forum and seeks to curtail multiplicity of proceedings, while offering limited flexibility for practical adjustments (such as video-link hearings) to accommodate convenience concerns. - FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDIn the case of Suprabha Nitesh Patil @ Suprabha Anant Khot v. Nitesh Gajanan Patil (MCA Nos. 124/2024 & 415/2024, decided 21 Oct 2025 by a Single Bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil), the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 HMA before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai on 5 December 2022, while the wife filed her petition for divorce (same spouses) on 14 December 2022 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan. Each party then filed a transfer application: the wife seeking to transfer the husband’s petition to Kalyan; the husband seeking to transfer the wife’s petition to Bandra. The primary issue presented was which court should proceed, having regard to the statutory mandate under Section 21-A HMA.
- STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND TRANSFER INTERPLAY
- HMA Section 21-A
Inserted by the Hindu Marriage (Amendment) Act, the provision reads in relevant parts:
When any petition under Section 10 or Section 13 is presented by one spouse and thereafter another petition is presented by the other spouse under those sections to a different district court, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the district court in which the earlier petition was presented, and both petitions shall be heard and disposed of together.
The language employs the word “shall”, thus signalling a mandatory directive rather than a permissive one. - CPC Section 24
Section 24 CPC confers a general discretionary power to the High Court or a District Court to transfer or withdraw any suit or other proceeding under its original jurisdiction “at any stage” in the interest of justice or for the convenience of parties. This power is broad, but uses the term “may”. - Relationship Between Provisions
The Court in this case emphasised that Section 21-A is a special provision applicable to matrimonial petitions under the HMA, and its mandatory character means it governs over the general power under Section 24 CPC to the extent of conflict. The statutory scheme thus favours consolidation of multiple petitions between the same parties to avoid conflicting judgments, duplication, and forum-shopping.
- HMA Section 21-A
- ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
- Priority of First-in-Time Filing
Justice Patil held that since the husband’s petition (5 Dec 2022) preceded the wife’s (14 Dec 2022) by nine days, the wife’s petition counted as the “later” petition under Section 21-A(2)(b), and therefore must be transferred to the court where the earlier petition is pending (Family Court, Bandra). - Mandatory Nature of Transfer
The Court stressed the mandatory wording of Section 21-A:
“The petition presented later shall be transferred to the district court in which the earlier petition was presented … and both petitions shall be heard and disposed of together.”
By contrast, Section 24 CPC uses “may”. The Court thus held that the specific mandate in the HMA overrides the general discretionary power in CPC. - Role of Convenience and Section 24 CPC
The wife urged transfer on grounds of her convenience (residence in Kalyan, travel burden). She relied on precedents under Section 24 CPC (e.g., N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022)). The Court held that those precedents did not address Section 21-A specifically, and thus were inapplicable to override the statutory command. The Court did, however, accommodate the inconvenience by allowing video-link hearings or travel cost reimbursement rather than venue change. - Tagging and Joint Hearing
The Court directed that the later-filed petition (Kalyan) be transferred and tagged with the earlier petition at Bandra, so that both matters are heard together by the same court/Judge.
- Priority of First-in-Time Filing
- IMPLICATIONS AND CRITICAL REFLECTIONS
- IMPLICATIONS FOR MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION
- Forum strategy: Litigants must be aware that the first petition filed places not only their own case but also any cross-petition by the other spouse in its jurisdiction.
- Avoidance of conflicting decrees: By mandating consolidation, the risk of two courts passing inconsistent orders (one granting, one rejecting divorce) is reduced.
- Administrative efficiency: One court handling both petitions speeds up resolution, avoids duplication of evidence, and lessens the burden on parties.
- CRITICAL REFLECTIONS
- Limitation of convenience: The judgment emphasises statutory priority over convenience. While travel or distance burdens were considered, they were not sufficient to override Section 21-A. Some may argue that this rigid approach may unfairly burden a spouse in a remote location.
- Electronic and cost mitigation: The court’s suggestion of video hearings or cost-sharing is pragmatic. However, practical implementation may vary across courts, raising equity concerns.
- Inter-state filings: The judgment deals with petitions in different courts within a State. The interaction of Section 21-A with petitions filed in other states or outside the territorial ambit may need further clarity.
- Delay tactics and misuse: The decision may deter forum-shopping but also raise concerns if transfer applications themselves are used to delay court proceedings. The Court’s parallel jurisprudence rejects transfers as delay tactics.
- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE
- Practitioners should check for any prior petition by the opposite spouse before initiating a divorce/judicial separation petition.
- In cross-petition scenarios, transfer applications should be invoked promptly under Section 21-A rather than rely solely on convenience grounds.
- Courts and registries should maintain tracking of petitions between the same parties to flag duplicate filings.
- Consideration should be given to issuing uniform guidelines for video hearings and cost-sharing to mitigate inconvenience when transfer is mandated but travel is burdensome.
- IMPLICATIONS FOR MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION
- CONCLUSION
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in Suprabha Nitesh Patil v. Nitesh Gajanan Patil is a clarion reaffirmation of the mandatory nature of Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It strengthens the procedural principle that the later-filed petition between the same spouses must be transferred to the court of the first-filed petition, thereby promoting consistency, judicial efficiency, and avoidance of multiplicity in matrimonial litigation. While this may limit venue flexibility, the Court’s accommodation via modern mechanisms (video hearings, travel cost sharing) reflects a balanced approach between statutory discipline and practical fairness. For lawyers and couples alike, the “first in time” rule now has reinforced force — and demand for careful pre-filing strategy.Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.
