SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2083

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Anju Boyal – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Kumar – Respondent
Civil Transfer Petition No. 87 of 2020
Decided On : 11-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pushkar Taiminee for Mr. Sanjay Nahar, for the Appellant
Mr. Nishit Shah, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the petitioner's status as a working woman and mother of minor children, and the significant difficulties she faced in traveling to a distant court for hearings, ultimately influencing the court's decision to allow the transfer petition.

Headnote:

Transfer Petition - Transfer of Civil Case - Code of Civil Procedure, Hindu Marriage Act, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 24, Section 9, Section 13(1), Section 125, Section 9, Section 37 - The court allowed the transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considering the difficulties faced by the petitioner, a working woman and mother of two minor children, in traveling to a distant court for hearings. The court emphasized the inconvenience caused to the minor children and the multiple duties of the petitioner, ultimately deciding in favor of transferring the case to a more accessible court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a wife and mother of two minor children, sought the transfer of a petition filed by the respondent, her husband, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the court in Chirawa, Jhunjhunu to the Family Court in Bhilwara, citing difficulties in traveling with her children and the need to attend to her job and other pending litigations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, being a working woman and mother of minor children, would face significant difficulties in traveling to the distant court for hearings, causing inconvenience to her and her children. Considering the circumstances, the court allowed the transfer petition, emphasizing the petitioner's multiple duties and the inconvenience caused to the minor children.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the transfer of the civil case from a distant court to a more accessible one, taking into account the petitioner's status as a working woman and mother of minor children.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the significant difficulties faced by the petitioner, a working woman and mother of minor children, in traveling to a distant court for hearings, emphasizing the inconvenience caused to the minor children and the petitioner's multiple duties.

Final Decision: The court allowed the transfer petition, ordering the transfer of the civil case from the court in Chirawa, Jhunjhunu to the Family Court in Bhilwara, considering the petitioner's difficulties in traveling with her minor children and her multiple duties.

ORDER

1. The instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner - wife seeking transfer of petition filed against respondent - husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, presently pending in the court of Additional District Judge - Family Court, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu to the Family Court, Bhilwara.

2. Averments made in the petition are as under:-Petitioner -wife got married with the respondent -husband in the year 2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, two children being a boy and a girl were born. Respondent gave beating to the petitioner and involved in adultery also. For one such incident, petitioner registered a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Bhilwara on 21.8.2020. Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Additional District Judge, Chirawa for restitution of conjugal rights for which Court issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed application under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for declaring her marriage null and void and application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner also filed an application under Sections 9 and 37 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. There is constant threat perception in the mind of the petitioner that the respondent may cause harm either to the petitioner or her children and parents. Therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to appear and contest the case pending before the Court at Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. Petitioner resides at Bhilwara and works at Chittorgarh. The children of the petitioner are minor and require constant attention of the petitioner as there is no one else in the family to look after them. Petitioner cannot leave her children alone even for a single day and attend the case at Chirawa, Jhunjhunu. It would be appropriate that application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent pending before the learned Additional District Judge - Family Court, Chirawa be heard by the learned Family Court, Bhilwara before whom application under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for declaring marriage null and void is also pending. Petition has been supported by the affidavit.

3. In reply to the transfer petition, respondent - husband has denied allegations made against him. As per him, petitioner lodged the FIR on frivolous grounds only to harass him. Father of the respondent has also lodged an FIR before the Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa. Respondent is jobless. He loves his children and can never threaten or harm them. Petitioner has not come with true and correct facts. Petitioner travels daily from Bhilwara to Sinhana, Chittorgarh to discharge her duties as a Teacher without any complaint. Her entire case is based only on travelling difficulties and no other substantial reason has been stated by the petitioner for filing transfer petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:-

    (1) Sangeeta Alias Shreya vs. Prasant Vijay Wargiya : 2004 13 SCC 407.

    (2) Vibha Jain vs. Naresh Kumar Somiya : 2018 3 DNJ 1251

    5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that transfer petition filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed only on the ground that she is a lady and inconvenience will cause to her for travelling from Bhilwara to Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner would be paid expenses for her travelling and stay at Chirawa. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments:

      (1) Gayatri Mohapatra vs. Ashit Kumar Panda : (2003) 11 SCC 731

      (2) M. Sivagami vs. R. Raja : (2005) 12 SCC 301

      (3) Kanagalakshmi vs. A. Venkatesan : (2004) 13 SCC 405

      6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner is working woman and mother of two minor children. Her present place of posting is at Sinhana, Chittorgarh. R

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top