Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.
Vaibhavi Pinkesh Solanki —Applicant
versus
Pinkesh Vijaykumar Solanki —Respondent
R/Misc. Civil Application No.1050 of 2019
Decided on 12.2.2021
For the Applicant:Muhammadyusuf M Kharadi(9509), Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurav J Dave(6665) and Ms. Khushbu P Vyas(7040), Advocates
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 24 —Transfer of Case—No Child out of wedlock—Wife purporting to Transfer case from Vadodara to Surat—Wife owning a four Wheeler—Whether applicant wife is really suffering from hardship—The financial condition of the Applicant wife is better since she is having four wheeler vehicle and therefore so far as the comparative hardship is concerned, the Applicant wife has no such hardship and therefore the authority cited by the learned Advocate for the Applicant is not helpful to the Applicant wife in the case on hand— The Applicant wife is not having any hardship and having the job of fashion design and also having the four wheeler vehicle in her name, upon such premises, it appears that there is no much hardship to the Applicant wife compared to the Opponent – Husband. Moreover, there is only a single matter pending with the Court at Vadodara —The Opponent – Husband shall pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) to and fro expenses, including ancillary expense, to the Applicant - wife as and when she attends the proceedings at Family Court at Vadodara from the date of this order. [Paras 13.1, 16, 18]
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Muhammadyusuf M. Kharadi for the Applicant - Wife and learned Advocate Ms. Khushbu P. Vyas for the Opponent – Husband through video conference.
2. At the request made by the learned Advocates for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. The Applicant – Wife (Original Opponent) has filed this Miscellaneous Civil Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transferring the Family Suit No. 823 of 2019 pending with the Family Court at Vadodara to the Family Court at Surat on the grounds mentioned in the Application.
4. The facts in nutshell are that the Applicant is a legally wedded wife of the present opponent. The marriage between the parties took place on 25.5.2019. It is stated in the memo of application that since the inception of marriage, the applicant was subjected to physical and mental atrocity at the hands of the opponent and her family members for which the Applicant has lodged FIR with Mahila Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 398A, 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Applicant has also initiated the proceedings by invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act 2005 on 1.1.2019 being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1379 of 2019. The Applicant has also filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application by invoking the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1860.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. M.M.Kharadi for the Applicant – Wife has vehemently and fervently argued that in the present case the Applicant– Wife is facing hardships to attend the court at Vadodara from Surat and therefore the present Application is required to be transferred from Vadodar to Surat.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Kharadi has also drawn the attention of this court that the Opponent – Husband (Original Applicant) is working as Senior Engineer in GNFC and therefore also the Opponent is well to do in financial aspect and therefore greater hardship is caused to the Applicant – Wife and therefore also the matter may be transferred from Vadodara to Surat. It is further submitted that distance between Vadodara and Surat is more than 170 kmts.
7. In support of his submission, learned Advocate for the Applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) G.R.Bhuvaneshwari v. G.S.Puttaraju, 2018 (13) SCC 650
(ii) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, 2016 (14) SCC 356
(iii) Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, 2016 (3) SCC 69
(iv) Shraddha w/o Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt v. Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt, 2015 AIJEL-HC 233147
(v) Sonal Shreyansh Vasa v. Shreyansh Hitenbhai Vasa, 2013 (3) GLR 2759
8. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Khushbu P. Vyas for the Respondent – Husband has heavily opposed this Application and stated that the Applicant is working as Fashion Designer and she has a four wheeler car and therefore the Applicant is well to do and she can very well attend the court at Vadodara. Further, learned Advocate Ms. Vyas has placed reliance upon the medical papers and submitted that the Opponent – Husband is suffering from kidney stone and she has also placed reliance on different whats app messages and has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 191 and 146 of 2005 in case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das
decided on 29.8.2005 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the
be let in the two suits would be more or less the same. Joint trial of the two suits would avoid overlapping of evidence. Duplication of evidence can be avoided if the two suits are tried together.
Transfer Petition filed by the Appellant Wife on the ground of distance, therefore, the distance is not material. Further, the same observations was made by this court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 21 of 2019 in case of Rutva Jite
