Court No. - 6

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 507 of 2021

Applicant :- Smt. Jyoti Chaudhari

Opposite Party :- Sri Vivek Kumar

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Saran

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

A perusal of the Office Report dated 29.11.2022, last reiterated on

20.12.2022, shows that postal track report indicates that the addressee

has left without instructions. The report of the process server with regard

to the notice previously issued has been received, which says that the

sole respondent was informed over phone, but he refused to accept the

notice. The office report also shows that no one has put in appearance.

It is evident that the opposite party is attempting to evade service.

Service upon the opposite party is, therefore, held sufficient. The Court,

accordingly, proceeds to hear the transfer application forthwith.

2.

This is a wife’s transfer application under Section 24 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Case No. 1424 of 2021,

Vivek Kumar v. Smt. Jyoti Chaudhari, under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to the

Family Court, at Meerut.

3.

Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vivek Saran,

learned counsel for the applicant in support of this application.

4.

It is submitted by Mr. S.S. Pandey that there are two cases

pending inter partes before the Family Court at Meerut, details whereof

are mentioned in Paragraphs Nos. 14 and 15 of the affidavit and,

therefore, if the present proceedings are moved there, it would be

convenient to both parties, as they can request a single date. It is further

argued that the applicant does not have any independent source of

income. She is not in a position to maintain herself, much less travel on

each date fixed from Ghaziabad to Meerut and defend outstation

proceedings. If forced to attend at Ghaziabad, the applicant’s defence

2

would be severely impaired. Apart from other things, it is argued that

convenience of the wife about the venue has to be accorded priority, in

causes matrimonial.

5.

Since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite

party, the averments in the affidavit have to be taken as unrebutted.

6.

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

two cases that are pending inter partes at Meerut are mentioned in

Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14. One of these is a proceeding under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the other,

an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is nothing on record to show that the

opposite party had applied for transfer of these cases out of Meerut to

Gaziabad or any other district. As such, if the present proceedings are

transferred, all the three cases would be venued at the same station,

which would promote ease of litigation for parties. Moreover, it would

save time, energy and resources of the parties. It is the wife’s case that

she does not have any source of income of her own and is not in a

position to maintain herself. The said fact is asserted in Paragraphs Nos.

18 and 19 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. The said

averments are also unrebutted and, therefore, have to be accepted.

7.

The consequence, therefore, is that if the present proceedings are

not transferred, the applicant’s case would be seriously prejudiced on

account of limitation of finances that the applicant is handicapped by.

8.

It is by now well settled that in the matter of venue, convenience of

the wife has to be accorded primacy. In this connection, reference may

be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya

v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha¹ where on the issue in hand, it has been

held:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power

under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure

is that the ends of justice should demand the

1

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199

Transfer Applicat