1

Court No. - 1

Reserved

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 296 of 2020

Applicant :- Smt. Gajala Parveen

Opposite Party :- Sri Khaaluddin Khan @ Khalid Hashmi

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Srivastava,Narayan

Singh(Kushwaha)

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sudhanshu Pandey

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

The applicant has moved this Court under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of Pure Misc. Case no.7 of

2019, Khaaluddin Khan vs. Gajala Parveen, under Sections 10, 12,

25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 from the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Aligarh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah.

2.

Heard Mr. Narayan Singh (Kushwaha), learned Counsel for

the applicant and Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the sole opposite party.

3.

The applicant and the opposite party were married according

to Muslim rites on 20.10.2013. A child was born to the parties on

24.07.2014. Eschewing a reference to much about the matrimonial

dispute between parties, suffice it to say that two became an

estranged couple after the birth of their child with the wife staying

with her father at Etah. It is pointed out that three cases are pending

before the Courts at Etah, brought at the instance of the wife: the

first of these is a criminal case being Case no.11816 of 2016, State

vs. Khalid Hashmi and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A

IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station

Kotwali Nagar, District Etah; the second being an application under

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act; and, the third an

application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4.

The opposite party has instituted P.M. Case no.7 of 2019

before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, asking for the

custody of the parties' minor son. It is asserted by the applicant that

2

when she went over to Aligarh with her father to defend these

proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the opposite party,

along with a host of his companions, threatened to do the applicant

and her father to death. They assaulted her father, delivering blows

and employing sticks. In this regard, N.C.R. no.14 of 2019, under

Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh,

has been lodged. It is urged that the applicant has a serious threat

perception about injury to her life and limb in case she is forced to

defend these proceedings at Aligarh. At the same time, it is pointed

out that the distance between the two stations is 90 kilometers and it

is not possible for the applicant to defend effectively, appearing

before the Aligarh Court on every date, given her circumstances. It is

also asserted that the applicant has no source of livelihood and is

dependent upon her father, who is an old man.

5.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party, Mr. Sudhanshu

Pandey has vehemently opposed the prayer. He says that distance

between the two stations is not much and the evidence about

assault etc. is all concocted.

6.

This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused

the record.

7.

It is true that there is an N.C.R. about the incident of assault,

involving the applicant and her father, when they went to defend

proceedings at Aligarh. Regarding this incident, not only an N.C.R.

Has been registered with the Police, but there is also a medico-legal

report dated 04.03.2019, indicating that the applicant sustained five

injuries, all of which are contusions. The injuries have been found to

be simple, but the case of assault is certainly a very tangible

evidence, that can give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the

applicant's mind about the safety and security while she goes to

defend proceedings at Aligarh. In paragraph no.20 of the counter

affidavit, the case of assault has been repudiated and the injury

report is said to be false.

3

8.

It is not this Court's province in a transfer matter to go into the

veracity of the allegations ca