Court No. - 9

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 125 of 2020

Applicant :- Smt. Ranjana Pandey

Opposite Party :- Avanish Pandey

Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

Vide order of this Court dated 02.03.2020, notice was

issued to opposite party. As per o昀케ce report dated

24.11.2021, undelivered cover has been received back

with post o昀케ce remark as "PRAPTKRTA KE GHAR VALON NE

BATAYA KI PRAPTKARTA HAMARE SATH NAHI RAHTA. DELHI

RAHTA HAI." Under such facts of the case, notice is treated

to be su昀케cient and the Court has proceeded to decide the

case on merits.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant

is wife of opposite party and residing at Ballia. He further

submitted that opposite party has 昀椀led Divorce Petition No.

281 of 2018 (Avanish Pandey Vs. Ranjana Pandey), under

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, which is around 685 kilometers

away from District Ballia, therefore, it is very di昀케cult for

the applicant to attend the Court proceedings at District

Jhansi on each date 昀椀xed and defend e昀昀ectively. He further

submitted that two cases being Case Crime No. 147 of

2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427, 498A I.P.C. and

3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia and

Case No. 281 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are

pending in District Ballia. He next submitted that Apex

Court as well as many other Courts have taken constant

view that in such cases convenience of the wife has to be

taken into consideration. In support of his contention, he

has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court,

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court and

this Court in the cases of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar

Sanjay reported in 2001 LawSuit(SC) 363, Sweety

Vs. Anuj Garg passed in T.A. No. 228 of 2014 decided

on 11 August, 2015 and D. Kokila Vs. R. Dillibabu

passed in Transfer C.M.P. No. 201 of 2016 decided on

4 October, 2016, Satyam Goyal vs. Principal Judge,

Family Court Gonda and others passed in

Application Nos. 93 & 119 of 2017 decided on

3.8.2018, Smt. Dipti Saxena Vs. Ashish Srivastava

and another passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No.

567 of 2019 decided on 14.12.2020 and Swapnal

Mishra vs. Saurabh Mishra

passed in

Transfer

Application (Civil) Nos. 152 of 2019 & 111 of 2021

decided on 4.2.2022 respectively. Lastly, he submitted that

recently this Court in the matter of Smt. Shakshi

Agarwal vs. Sri Ashutosh Agarwal allowed the transfer

Application 昀椀led by wife vide detailed judgment and order

dated 4.2.2022 considering the di昀昀erent pronouncements

made by the Apex Court as well as High Courts.

Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case,

the transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of 281

of 2018 (Avanish Pandey Vs. Ranjana Pandey) is withdrawn

from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Jhansi is directed to transmit the

record of 281 of 2018 to Principal Judge, Family Court,

Ballia within 15 days from the date of production of

certi昀椀ed copy of this order. Thereafter, endeavour shall be

made to decide the aforesaid case maximum within a

period of six months as provided in Section 21-B of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Ballia or other Additional Judge as per the Rules of the

Family Court.

Order Date :- 25.3.2022

Rmk.

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI

KUSHWAHA

Date: 2022.03.28 18:52:06 IST

Reason:

Location: High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad