Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sadhna Bhadoriya (Smt.) v. Dr. Sunil Bhadoriya
Civil Revision No. 86 of 2019 (G); Decided on 4.2.2019*
H.K. Shukla for applicant.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 13 and 9 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- respondent/husband filed application under section 13 of Act 1955 -- applicant wife filed suit under section 9 of Act, 1955 -- applicant also filed application under section 125, Cr.P.C. -- respondent filed two applications for amendment in pleadings -- these applications kept pending for two years -- respondent rightly apprehended that he will not get justice -- sought transfer of case -- Principal Judge, Family Court rightly transferred respondent's suit and applicant's suit from Court of Additional Principal Judge Family Court to Link Court of Family Court. (2008) 3 SCC 659, AIR 1966 SC 1418 and (2018) 6 SCC 358 followed. [Paras 7 to 9
(2) Judge -- Judge is expected to make every endeavour to decide litigation between parties as early as possible. [Para 8
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 24 & fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 rFkk 9 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & ÁR;FkhZ@ifr us vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 13 ds v/khu okn Qkby fd;k & vkosfndk@iRuh us vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 9 ds v/khu okn Qkby fd;k & vkosfndk us naŒÁŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu Hkh vkosnu Qkby fd;k & ÁR;FkhZ us vfHkopuksa esa la'kksËku ds fy, nks vkosnu Qkby fd, & ;g vkosnu nks o"kksZ ls yafcr j[ks x, & ÁR;FkhZ us Bhd gh vk'kadk dh fd mls U;k; ÁkIr ugha gksxk & ekeys ds varj.k dh bZIlk dh & Á/kku U;k;k/kh'k] dqVqac U;k;ky; us ÁR;FkhZ dk okn rFkk vkosfndk dk okn dqVqac U;k;ky; ds vij Á/kku U;k;k/kh'k ds U;k;ky; ls dqVqac U;k;ky; ds J`a[kyk U;k;ky; dks Bhd gh varfjr fd;kA ¼2008½ 3 ,l lh lh 659] , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1418 rFkk ¼2018½ 6 ,l lh lh 358 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7 ls 9½
¼2½ U;k;k/kh'k & i{kdkjksa ds chp eqdnesckth dk ;FkklaHko 'kh?kz fofu'p; djus ds fy, ls ÁR;sd Á;kl fd;k tkuk U;k;k/kh'k ls visf{kr gSA ¼iSjk 8½
1. This revision under section 115 of the CPC has been filed challenging the order dated 25.1.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Miscellaneous Transfer Petition No. 6/2019 (MJC), by which the application filed by the respondent under section 24 of CPC has been allowed and the matrimonial case under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent and suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant have been transferred from the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior to the Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior. By the same order, the transfer petition No. 55/2018 filed by the applicant for transfer of her case under section 125 of CrPC from the Link Court to any other Court has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the parties are husband and wife and the respondent has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereas the applicant has filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The applicant has also filed an application under section 125 of CrPC and all these cases are pending. By filling an application under section 24 of CPC, it was submitted by the respondent that the petition filed by the respondent under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which has been registered as 400A/2015 and the petition filed by the applicant under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been registered as 373A/2016 are pending in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior whereas the application filed by the applicant under section 125 of CrPC, which has been registered as 42/2016 is pending before the Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior. In case No. 400A/2015 on 17.3.2017, the respondent had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC, but the Presiding Officer in spite of hearing the arguments on the said application, is not deciding the same. Another application was also filed on 17.7.2018 and the same has also been kept pending by the Presiding Judge and is adjourning the matter for arguments. The application filed by the applicant under section 125 of CrPC was also pending in the same Court and when the respondent tried to put certain question alleging adultery against the applicant, then he was not allowed to do so. Accordingly, the respondent had approached the High Court by filing MCrC No. 32023/2018, which was allowed and it was held that the respondent is entitled to put question to the applicant about the adultery. The applications for amendment, which have been filed in case No. 400A/2015, are with regard to the adultery and cruelty, but the Presiding Judge is deliberately not deciding the matter.
3. Similarly, the applicant had filed an application for transfer of her application under section 125 of CrPC from the Link Court to any other Court. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, after considering the conduct of the Presiding Judge in keeping the application pending and in not deciding the cases simultaneously, where the allegations were identical and same, came to the conclusion that the apprehension in the mind of the respondent of not getting the justice is reasonable and accordingly has allowed the application filed by the respondent and has transferred the cases to the Link Court, Gwalior. As two cases involving the identical allegations were transferred to the Link Court, Family Court, Gwalior, therefore, the application filed by the applicant for transfer of her criminal case under section 125 of CrPC from the Link Court Family Court, Gwalior has been rejected. The Court below has also expressed its displeasure over keeping the amendment applications pending for such a long time.
4. The question for consideration is that whether the apprehension expressed by any of the party for transfer of the case can be said to be reasonable or not ? The Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh v. Kand
