Chattisgarh High Court
Chhavi Agrawal vs Sandeep Agrawal on 9 May, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:17114
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
TPC No. 25 of 2024
• Chhavi Agrawal W/o Sandeep Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Lig 46, Sarita
Bhawan, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh Presently R/
o Ward No. 11, Hanuman Chowk, Village Bijuri, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
• Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years R/o
Nagaikhor, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri Tehsil Darri, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
And
---- Respondent
TPC No. 28 of 2024 • Chhavi Agrawal W/o Sandeep Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Lig 46, Sarita Bhawan, Sada Colony, Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba, C.G., Presently Residing At Ward No. 11, Hanuman Chowk, Village- Bijuri, District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged About 36 Years R/o Nagoikhar Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged About 72 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Kamla Agrawal W/o Niranjan Lal Aged About 65 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
4. Sajan Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Aged About 48 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
5. Neetu Agrawal W/o Shri Sanjay Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
6. Dinesh Agrawal S/o Shri Niranjan Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
7. Naina Agrawal W/o Shri Dinesh Agrawal Aged About 35 Years R/o Nagoikhar, Ward No. 52, Irrigation Colony, Darri, Tehsil- Darri, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17114 2
8. Seema Agrawal W/o Umashankar Agrawal Aged About 44 Years R/o Ratanpur, Post Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
9. Umashankar Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Ratanpur, Post Ratanpur, District -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mrs. Binu Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
09/05/2024
1. Both the petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") have been iled by the petitioner-wife in TPC No. 25/2024 seeking relief of transfer of petition bearing Case No. 129-A/2021 (Sandeep Agrawal Vs. Smt. Chhavi Gupta) preferred by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the "Act of 1955") for grant of decree of judicial separation of marriage before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katghora District Korba (C.G.) to Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG). In TPC No. 28/2024, the petitioner-wife is seeking relief of transfer of petition bearing Case No. 13/2022 (Smt. Chhavi Gupta Vs. Sandeep Agrawal ) preferred by the petitioner- wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) to Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 13.06.2020 as per the Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, relations turned sour and the petitioner was subjected to abusing, misbehaving, demanding money and mental injury by the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17114 3 respondent. This is second marriage of both the petitioner and the respondent herein. The respondent had obtained a decree of divorce from her irst wife. The petitioner has also obtained a decree of divorce from her irst husband and from the wedlock of her irst marriage, she is having a minor son who is presently residing with the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that because of the continuous threat of the respondent and his family members and also cruelty sufered by the respondent and her in-laws, it is getting diiculty for the petitioner to reside at Darri-Korba and because of the permanent medical condition of the petitioner, she is compelled to reside with her widow mother at Bijuri, Madhya Pradesh. She submits that there is no direct connectivity of train or bus route from Bijuri Madhya Pradesh to Katghora, District Korba and it takes almost hours of traveling. As the father of the petitioner has died, the petitioner is living with her aged mother and minor son and there is no one in the family to assist the petitioner to come to the Family Court at Korba for each and every date of hearing and it will be diicult for her to attend the hearing of the case and to incur traveling expenditure, therefore the petitioner most respectfully prays to transfer aforementioned petitions bearing case No. 129A of 2021 and 13 of 2022 to Family Court at Bilaspur.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband opposes the prayer for transfer of the case from Korba to Bilaspur and submits that irst of all no relevant reason for residing at Bijuri has been mentioned in both the petitions, nor has any document been iled with relates to address of Bijuri except mentioned in cause-title. The medical document which has been iled by the petitioner relates to Jamnipali District Korba of the recent period i.e. 20.01.2024 and this petition was iled only on 12.02.2024, this itself goes to show that the petitioner is presently residing at Korba.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17114 4
5. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that it is surprising to note that if the petitioner is living at village Bijuri, District Anuppur, M.P., the Family Court at Manendragarh is only 20 Kms away from Bijuri. The petitioner has made complaints and lodged FIR against the respondent-husband which are also pending at Jamnipali, District Korba. On the other hand, in TPC No. 28/2024, the respondents No. 2 to 9 who are old aged persons, are residing at District Korba and they will sufer, if this petition is allowed. Therefore, he prays that both the transfer petitions may be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record with utmost circumspection.
7. The law in this regard is settled that the convenience of wife should be considered but the fact that petitioner-wife Chhavi Agrawal is presently residing at Jamipali District Korba can be proved from the recent medical documents, theft complaint iled by her and FIR lodged by her to the police regarding fear and threat from her in-laws and husband and in the said complaint she has categorically stated that she is residing at Jamnipali District Korba. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner has iled the present petitions for transfer by stating wrong, misleading facts and by concealing the material facts. If this Court would take into consideration that the petitioner is residing at Bijuri District Anuppur M.P., from where the Family Court Manendragarh is only 20 Kms away, so the petitioner-wife should have been transferred the case at Family Court Manendragarh from where direct buses and trains are available. Further, at District Korba, other proceedings are already pending between the parties. So, there should not be any problem to the petitioner to face the cases at Korba. The present petitions are liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of only concocted and baseless reasons are given in her Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:17114 5 petitions for transferring the cases from Korba to Bilaspur. This Court does not ind any justiiable reason to transfer the petitions.
8. In the result, both the petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Consequently, the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. It is needless to say that the petitioner-wife may appear through video conferencing/virtually, if permitted by the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti