Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Durga @ Sarswati vs Mahendra Narayan on 17 January, 2018
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 109 / 2016
;kph %&
Jherh nqxkZ mQZ ljLorh iRuh Jh egsUnz ukjk;.k iq=h Jh MkypUn ykSgkj ¼iVokjh½
tkfr fgUnw&yksgj mez 27 o"kZ fuoklh fcpyh f[kM+dh] iwjfc;ksa dk eksgYyk] u;k 'kgj]
fd'kux<+] ftyk vtesj ¼jkt-½ ------------------ vizkFkhZ
cuke
v;kph %&
egsUnz ukjk;.k iq= Jh txnh"k ukjk;.k mez 29 o"kZ tkfr fgUnw xkfM;k&yksgkj
fuoklh d`f'k e.Mh] y{ehukjk;.k eafnj ds ikl] ensj.kk dkyksuh] Hknokfl;k jksM+] tks/kiqjA
----------------izkFkhZ
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shahadat Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mukherjee
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
17/01/2018
The present transfer application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant, seeking
transfer of Civil Original Case No.218/2016 (Mahendra Narayan
Vs. Smt. Durga alias Saraswati), pending before the Family Court-
I, Jodhpur to Kishangarh.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
applicant-petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent
got married on 29.06.2001, during their childhood and thereafter
"Gauna" took place in 2003., Some time thereafter, as a result of
strained marital relationship, petitioner left her husband's house
and went to Kishangarh for living with her parents. Learned
counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner has filed two
cases, out of which, one is under Section 125 Cr.PC for
(2 of 3)
[CTA-109/2016]
maintenance and the other is under Section 23 of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, whereas the respondent-husband has filed the
impugned case, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at
Jodhpur, for which, the petitioner has to travel all the way from
Kishangarh to Jodhpur to participate in these proceedings. He
submitted that the journey from Kishangarh to Jodhpur, which is
about 235 kms away from her place of residence takes at least
five hours in a bus, which is a daunting task, not to mention
significant expenditure that is to be incurred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner is required to be accompanied by a male member of her
family to come to Jodhpur to participate in these proceedings,
whereas the respondent who is already contesting two cases filed
by the petitioner in Kishangarh can very well go to Kishangarh, if
the matter at hand is transferred there.
Mr. S.K. Mukherjee, appearing for the respondent-husband
vehemently opposed such request and submitted that there are
six criminal cases pending against the petitioner filed by various
persons, which have been contested by her at Jodhpur. Besides,
petitioner's sister also resides at Jodhpur, for which it is not as
difficult as has been projected by the petitioner, for her to come to
Jodhpur to contest the case in question. Learned counsel
submitted that the respondent is a small time blacksmith for
whom, going to Kishangarh would act as an impediment in the
business apart from causing financial loss.
In the facts obtaining in the present case, this Court does
not find any justifiable reason to transfer the case in question
(3 of 3)
[CTA-109/2016]
from Jodhpur to Kishangarh; however to meet the ends of justice,
it is deemed expedient and hence ordered that as and when
petitioner comes to Jodhpur for taking part in the proceedings, the
respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to recompense
the cost of her travel, lodging and boarding etc.
The learned Family Court Jodhpur No.1 would ensure that on
each such occasion when the petitioner- Smt. Durga alias
Saraswati comes to the Family Court and effectively participate in
the proceedings, such amount of cost as aforesaid is paid to her.
With these observations, the transfer application stands
disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Upendra/20