The Court may consider the overall circumstances and convenience of the parties in deciding the transfer of a suit under Section 24 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Nilaya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent was available before the Court prior to lunch, when the hearing had commenced and while rising for lunch, the Court had specifically informed Shri Srivatava that the matter shall continue after lunch, however, after lunch recess, none on behalf of the respondent appeared nor any junior counsel is available to make any request nor any engagement slip has been given. Accordingly, the Court has continued to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits of the petition.

2. By means of the instant application, preferred under Section 24 CPC, the petitioner seeks transfer of Original Suit No.338/2018 (Ankit Srivastava v. Shruti Verma), under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Room No.6, Family Court, Lucknow to the appropriate Court in District Varanasi.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 27.01.2014, however, despite ample gifts having been given at the time of wedding, yet there were certain issues which were escalated by the respondent which led to matrimonial discord between the parties and the petitioner was turned out from her matrimonial home and the petitioner started residing with her mother at Varanasi since 02.08.2014.

4. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and also a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Court at Varanasi. The petitioner also preferred a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. During pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the matter was referred to the Mediation Cell and in order to give the marriage another chance, the petitioner agreed to start residing with the respondent. A compromise was entered between the parties on 03.09.2015, however, since the compromise did not work and the behaviour of the respondent did not improve, consequently, just after three days of returning, the petitioner again left the respondent and since 02.11.2015, the petitioner is residing at Varanasi.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner also got an FIR lodged at Varanasi and in the meantime on an application for interim maintenance in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, an interim order dated 20.04.2019 was passed and in terms whereof the petitioner was granted an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month. The respondent assailed the said order of maintenance in an appeal which came to be allowed on 05.04.2022.

7. It is further submitted that even the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by means of the order dated 05.05.2022. Earlier, a petition preferred by the petitioner seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., came to be dismissed on 16.11.2017.

8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that the petitioner has not been provided any maintenance rather the proceedings are being contested by the respondent. He has not performed any of his obligations of maintaining the petitioner (his wife). In the aforesaid backdrop, the respondent instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Original Suit No.338/2018 (Earlier, suit was registered as Case No.764/2016).

9. It is this suit preferred under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is sought to be transferred by the petitioner and taking his arguments forward, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised two grounds:-

(i) the first contention is that the proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow is not maintainable inasmuch as Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers jurisdiction on the Courts to entertain a petition.

10. As per the petitioner, the respondent is a resident o