N.M. KASLIWAL, J.—The petitioner Smt Sawita has filed this transfer petition under s. 24 C.P.C. read with sec. 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for transferring Case No. 133/83: Chandra Prakash vs. Smt. Sawita, pending in the court of District Judge, Bharatpur, to the court at Jaipur and to consolidate the same with Case No. 130/83, pending in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are: that Smt. Sawita, the petitioner was married to Chandra Prakash, the non-petitioner, on 27.11.82 at Jaipur according to Hindu rites. The case of the petitioner is that after their marriage, the parties lived together at Bhusawar upto 21.8.83. Before the marriage, the petitioners father had given Rs. 21000/- and other valuable articles including jewellery to the non-petitioner. The non petitioner and his father wanted to have a Scooter from the petitioners father. This demand could not be met. Thus, after few months of the marriage, the non-petitioner and his father started mal-treating the petitioner and on her refusal to bring scooter, her life was made miserable and she became sick. It has been further alleged that on 21.8.83, the petitioners father-in-law and her husband left her at her maternal uncles house at Jaipur without speaking anything to the maternal-uncle. The non-petitioner and his father started making false and frivolous charges against the petitioner and her father. A notice was received by the petitioner and her father from the Advocate of the non-petitioner. In this notice, it was alleged that the petitioner was mentally sick. A reply was sent to the said notice by the Advocate of the petitioner, in which it was clearly mentioned that an application under s. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted an application for restitution of conjugal rights under s. 9 of the Act on 11.10.83 in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur. The non-petitioner, having come to know that the petitioner has already filed an application under s. 9 of the Act and in order to harass the petitioner and her father, filed another petition under s. 12 of the Act on 28,10.83 in the court of District Judge, Bharatpur for declaring the marriage between the parties, an null and void.

3. The petitioner in these circumstances, has submitted this application for transferring the petition filed under s. 12 of the Act by the non-petitioner in the court of District Judge, Bharatpur, to the court of District Judge, Jaipur and to be tried along with the petition filed by the petitioner under s. 9 of the Act.

4. In this regard it has been submitted by the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur was filed on 11.10.83. while the petition filed by the non-petitioner in the court of Districts Judge Bharatpur was filed on 28.10.83 and in accordance with the intention of the framers of s. 21-A of the Act, it was clear that a petition filed subsequently, should be transferred to the court, in which the earlier petition is pending, It has been further submitted that the question to be decided in both the petitions is common and in case these two petitions shall be allowed to be tried by two different courts, there is a possibility of conflicting judgements. It has also been submitted that in the interest of justice and to save the valuable time of the courts, both the petitions should be consolidated and tried by one and the same court. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a lady and in case she would be compelled to attend the court at Bharatpur, she will have to take one of her relatives also to escort her upto the court of Bharatpur and this would cause great inconvenience and expenditure to the petitioner. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had a fear of life in going to Bharatpur as the non-petitioner and his family members wanted to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document