Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ankita Bhati vs. Dev Raj Singh Bhati (2023 INSC 643)

Transfer Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 643Decided 13 Jul 2023
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1770 of 2021
Abhay S. Oka · Sanjay Karol

Background

A married couple were embroiled in multiple, simultaneous legal proceedings across two states: a maintenance petition, a domestic violence complaint, and a Section 125 CrPC maintenance case filed by the wife in Himachal Pradesh, alongside a divorce petition filed by the husband and a criminal case (arising from the wife's own FIR alleging assault and cruelty) pending in Rajasthan. A mediation attempt to settle the disputes had failed. The wife filed two transfer petitions before the Supreme Court, asking that the husband's divorce case and the criminal case, both pending in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, be moved to the courts in Solan, Himachal Pradesh where her other cases were already pending.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that in transfer petitions arising from matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is normally the deciding factor, departing from this only in exceptional, glaring cases. It rejected the husband's objections (that the State government was a necessary party, and that precedent barred such transfers) finding those objections were based on distinguishable facts (e.g., no other co-accused were left unrepresented here, and the husband was already attending other proceedings in Himachal Pradesh). The Court noted the transfer actually served the husband's own convenience by consolidating all disputes in one location. It allowed both transfer petitions: the divorce case was transferred from the Family Court, Jaisalmer to the Family Court, Solan, and the criminal case was transferred from Jaisalmer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, Solan district, with directions that hearing dates be aligned across the transferred and existing cases, and that the husband be granted exemption from personal appearance on formal request.

Lesson Learnt

When a married couple is fighting multiple linked cases in different cities, courts will generally consolidate proceedings at the location convenient to the wife, and can also protect the other spouse's interests (for example, by exempting them from having to personally appear at every hearing) rather than making them travel repeatedly across states.

Ankita Bhati vs. Dev Raj Singh Bhati (2023 INSC 643) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware