We have been serving our clients from all over India in their major conflicts. We at our firm put our best possible efforts to minimize the problem of our client which outreach as our finest attributes of being the Best Advocate in Delhi & Divorce lawyer in Rohini.
Representation before the Supreme Court of India in matrimonial and criminal proceedings
The Supreme Court of India is the highest constitutional and appellate court in the country. Appearance before the Supreme Court involves specialised procedural requirements and often requires advocates to address questions arising from decisions of High Courts, Family Courts and other subordinate judicial forums.
Publicly available Supreme Court records identify Ms./Mrs. Neha Batra, Advocate as appearing in multiple matters before the Supreme Court. Two such matters examined in this case study are:
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2333/2024
The matter arose from matrimonial proceedings between Ankita Dwivedi and Anil Kumar Tiwari. The petitioner sought transfer of a matrimonial proceeding pending before the Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, to a Family Court at Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
Several proceedings were pending against the respondent at Satna, including proceedings under Section 498A and other penal provisions, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Advocate Neha Batra represented Anil Kumar Tiwari, the respondent-husband. During the proceedings, she placed the respondent’s position before the Supreme Court and submitted, in particular, that the respondent was unaware of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the maintenance proceedings because summons had not been received in those matters.
The principal issue was whether the matrimonial proceeding pending before the Family Court at Rohini, Delhi, should be transferred to the Family Court at Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
Transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes may involve consideration of the convenience of the parties, location of related proceedings, financial and logistical circumstances, residence of the parties, effective participation in proceedings and the interests of justice.
The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition. The matrimonial proceeding titled Anil Kumar Tiwari v. Ankita Dwivedi, pending before the Family Court, North District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, was directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Satna, Madhya Pradesh.
The Court also directed the transferee court to endeavour to resolve the matter amicably or decide it expeditiously and facilitate mediation with the consent of both parties. Participation through video conferencing on non-essential dates could also be considered where appropriate.
The location of related proceedings can be an important practical consideration in matrimonial transfer matters.
Multiple proceedings in different jurisdictions can create procedural and logistical difficulties for litigants.
Transfer may help reduce repeated travel, procedural inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure.
The Court’s reference to amicable settlement highlights the importance of alternative dispute resolution in matrimonial matters.
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1759/2025
The matter reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging the final judgment and order dated 24 October 2024 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRMP No. 760/2023.
A Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is an important appellate mechanism through which the Supreme Court may be asked to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction against an order or judgment of a court or tribunal.
The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti. Neha Batra was recorded as counsel for the petitioners.
The matter again came before the same Bench. Neha Batra continued to be recorded as counsel for the petitioners. The matter was directed to be listed after two weeks following a request for adjournment.
Unlike the first case, the publicly available Supreme Court records identified for this study concern interlocutory proceedings rather than a final judgment deciding the merits of the SLP.
Consequently, it would not be appropriate to state that the petition was ultimately allowed or dismissed without a later final order. Nevertheless, the matter demonstrates participation in the SLP (Criminal) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
An SLP requires careful consideration of the impugned High Court order, the questions of law or grounds relied upon, procedural history, supporting documents, the scope of Article 136 jurisdiction and appropriate interim relief where required.
Careful examination of the High Court judgment or order challenged before the Supreme Court.
Identification and presentation of appropriate questions of law and grounds for invoking Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Understanding the sequence of proceedings leading to the challenged High Court order.
Maintaining a complete documentary record at the appellate stage, including additional documents where permitted.
Understanding the discretionary nature and scope of the Supreme Court’s special leave jurisdiction.
Considering appropriate interim relief where required during the appellate proceedings.
| Particular | Ankita Dwivedi v. Anil Kumar Tiwari | Sharad Nand Jha v. State of Chhattisgarh |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court Proceeding | Transfer Petition (Civil) | SLP (Criminal) |
| Case No. | TP(C) No. 2333/2024 | SLP (Crl.) No. 1759/2025 |
| Nature | Matrimonial transfer | Criminal appellate proceeding |
| Role of Neha Batra | Counsel for respondent | Counsel for petitioners |
| Main Procedural Issue | Transfer of matrimonial proceedings | Challenge to High Court order |
| Court Stage | Final transfer order | Interlocutory SLP proceedings identified in the available record |
| Outcome Recorded | Transfer petition allowed | Matter adjourned; additional documents permitted |
| Area of Law | Matrimonial / Family Law | Criminal Law |
The two Supreme Court matters demonstrate that the practice associated with Advocate Neha Batra extends beyond trial-level family litigation to proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The Ankita Dwivedi v. Anil Kumar Tiwari matter demonstrates experience in matrimonial litigation and transfer proceedings, including consideration of the practical circumstances of parties involved in multiple proceedings.
The Sharad Nand Jha & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. matter demonstrates participation in criminal SLP proceedings and illustrates the procedural demands of Supreme Court appellate practice.