RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Lataa Nawani - Appellant
Versus
Himanshu Nawani - Respondent
Civil Transfer Application No. 43 of 2021
Decided On : 06-08-2021
Transfer - Hindu Marriage Act - Sections 9, 24 CPC - The court emphasized the balance of convenience and the hardships faced by the petitioner, allowing the transfer of the case to ensure justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to transfer a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Jaipur to Jodhpur, citing cruelty and inability to attend court due to distance and threats from the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner faced significant hardship attending court in Jaipur, while the respondent failed to provide evidence of his claimed health issues that would prevent travel.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the case from Jaipur to Jodhpur is justified based on the circumstances of the petitioner and the balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the balance of convenience favored the petitioner, as attending court in Jaipur would cause undue hardship, and the respondent did not substantiate his claims.
Result: The transfer petition was allowed, moving the case to Family Court, Jodhpur.
JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Vyas, J. - Instant transfer application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by husband bearing case No.842/2020 : Himanshu Nawani Vs. Latta Nawani, pending in Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to the Family Court, Jodhpur has been filed by the wife, petitioner herein.
2. As per averments made in the petition, marriage between the parties was solmenized on 10.02.2012 at Jodhpur. Petitioner is resident of Jodhpur; petitioner has been treated with cruelty by her husband, she was beaten repeatedly by her husband. She left her matrimonial home and lodged an FIR against the respondent and her in-laws for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 & 354 IPC at police station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City West.
3. Petitioner is a poor lady having no source of income; she is unable to maintain herself and cannot bear the litigation expenses. Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending in Family Court, Jaipur. Petitioner is not in a position to attend the Court proceedings at Jaipur, as she is already attending the Court proceedings at Jodhpur and preparing for competitive examinations so that she can make herself independent. Respondent has filed the suit only to harass the petitioner. Being a lady, great hardship would be caused to the petitioner by attending the Court proceeding at Jaipur; Jaipur is about 360 Km far from Jodhpur. Apart from this, petitioner is under reasonable apprehension of mishappening with her at Jaipur, as respondent has given threatening to petitioner so many times. In such compelling circumstances, petitioner preferred this transfer application with the prayer to transfer the case pending before the Family Court, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur No.1 to Family Court, Jodhpur City, District Jodhpur.
4. In reply to this application, allegations made against the respondent have been denied. It is averred that respondent is suffering from disease of epilepsy and is continuously under treatment at Jaipur. In these circumstances, he is not in a position to go alone at a distant places; nobody in his family is available to go with him to Jodhpur.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner against whom application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed is resident of Jodhpur. It is also not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Jodhpur. As per averments made in the petition, petitioner has no source of income. In reply to the petition, respondent has not averred that petitioner is in employment. The distance between Jaipur and Jodhpur is about 350 Km. Though, respondent has stated in his reply that he is suffering from epilepsy and is continuously under treatment at Jodhpur, no document regarding his treatment has been filed, so it cannot be presumed that he is unable to travel from Jaipur to Jodhpur. No proposal has been made on behalf of the respondent to bear the litigation and travelling expenses to be incurred by wife to defend herself while coming to Jaipur.
7. In the above circumstances, the balance of convenience is in favour of the wife. It would be in the interest of justice that application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, presently pending at Jaipur may be heard and decided by the Family Court, Jodhpur.
8. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. The case No.842/2020 : Himanshu Nawani Vs. Lataa Nawani, pending before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur metropolitan is ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Jodhpur.
9. Let the parties may appear before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 31.08.2021 and thereafter, Family Court, Jodhpur would regulate the hearing.
10. A copy of this order be sent to Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and also to the Family Court, Jodhpur for necessary compliance.
The main legal point established is that in transfer applications under Section 24 CPC, the court will consider the balance of convenience and the interest of justice, taking into account the parties....
The court established that the balance of convenience and the potential hardship to the petitioner justified the transfer of the case under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.