SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 22727

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SRISTI ANAND – Appellant
Versus
DEVASHISH VERMA – Respondent
TACL 140/2019



Advocates:
['S B SINGH', 'NIRVIKALP PANDEY', '', 'UDAI CHANDANI']

Court No. - 6

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 140 of 2019

Applicant :- Sristi Anand

Opposite Party :- Devashish Verma

Counsel for Applicant :- S.B.Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Nirvikalp Pandey

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

2.

Admit.

3.

Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

4.

Heard Mr. S.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms.

Sanjleena Lal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Udai Chandani, learned

Counsel for the opposite party.

5.

The applicant, who is the wife, has come up seeking transfer of

Case No. 981 of 2018, Devashish Verma v. Smt. Sristi Anand, under

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court/F.T.C., Varanasi to the Family Court at Lucknow.

6.

It is the submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that two

cases inter partes are pending at Lucknow, details whereof are mentioned

in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the present

transfer application. It is argued that in case the proceedings of the

divorce petition are transferred from Varansi to Lucknow, it would be

convenient to both parties, as they can contest/defend all the three

proceedings at the same station, requesting the Courts concerned to

schedule a single date. It is next submitted that the applicant has no source

of livelihood, as averred in Paragraph No. 13 of the affidavit. She stays at

her parents’ place, and with no source of income or a suitable escort in the

family, it is very difficult for her to undertake the journey from Lucknow

Page 2 of 4

to Varanasi, which is about 310 kilometres one way. In the event she is

forced to defend at Varanasi, her defence would be seriously prejudiced.

7.

It is next submitted that the opposite party is an able-bodied man

and possessed of sufficient means to defend at Lucknow. He is an senior

officer in the Merchant Navy, where he has a permanent employment,

yielding an income of 3 lacs per month. The transfer to Lucknow would,

in no way, prejudice the opposite party. It is also urged that convenience

of the wife about the venue in causes matrimonial has to be accorded

priority.

8.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party, the fact

of pendency of two cases, detailed in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the

affidavit filed in support of the applicant, have not been denied. In this

connection, Paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit is relevant. It

discloses non-traverse of the fact. It is also not the case of the opposite

party that he has applied for transfer of the two cases pending cases at

Lucknow to Varanasi or some other district. So far as the employment and

the income are concerned, it is averred in Paragraph No. 4 that the

opposite party had to give up his employment with the Merchant Navy,

because the applicant was against his duties as a Sailor, where he had to

remain on-board ship for long periods of time.

9.

Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court finds that there

is no denying the fact that two cases inter partes are pending at Lucknow,

one of which is a case of domestic violence and the other a petition for

restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. It is not the opposite party’s case that he has applied for transfer of

the two pending cases at Lucknow to Varanasi or some other district.

Therefore, the opposite party would have to appear in the two cases

before the Courts at Lucknow. If the present proceedings are transferred to

Lucknow, both parties can request a single date in all matters. In any case,

all cases being at one station would promote ease of litigation for both

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 140 of 2019

Page 3 of 4

parties, besides saving time and expense for them. The applicant does not

have any source of livelihood of her own, a fact asserted in Paragraph No.

13 of the affidavit. There is no denial of the aforesaid assertion by the

opposite party in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top