Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Uga Devi vs Jagdish on 9 November, 2017
Author: Virendra Kumar Mathur
Bench: Virendra Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 7 / 2017
Uga Devi W/o Jagdish, D/o Umaram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o -
Presently Residing At Indra Nagar, Sangariya, P.S. Basni Jodhpur
(RAJ).
----Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish S/o Mangi Lal, R/o - Ward No. 2, Bhat Colony, Tehsil
Ghadsana, Dist Shri Ganganagar (RAJ).
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Bharat Devasi
For Respondent(s) : Mr D.S. Thind
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment 09/11/2017 This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.166/2016 {Jagdish v. Uga Devi} filed under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before Additional District Judge, Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar to the Family Court, Jodhpur.
Briefly stated, marriage between the parties took place in the year 2013. The petitioner has been harassed by the respondent and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under secs.498A, 406, 323 IPC before ACJM (PC PNDT Act cases), Jodhpur, wherein after investigation challan has been filed against the respondent.
(2 of 4) [CTA-7/2017] The respondent has filed a petition (No.166/2016) under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Additional District Judge, Anupgarh in counter blast to above case. The respondent has also given threats to petitioner on many occasions to withdraw the criminal case filed against him, therefore, there is danger to life of the petitioner in case she attends the court at Anupgarh in the course of proceedings pending before the ADJ, Anupgarh and in such circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner, who is a lady having no source of income, to travel all alone to Anupgarh for about 400 kms from Jodhpur, where she is presently residing with her parents.
Notices were issued to respondent. After service, the respondent appeared before this Court through advocate and filed reply to the application and contended that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner and respondent, by way of paying a huge amount to parents of petitioner Uga Devi by parents of respondent as per the personal custom prevalent in their society. He denied the allegation of harassment of petitioner by his family and contended that the Police, after thorough investigation, submitted final Negative report against false & frivolous allegations levelled against entire family of the respondent.
It is also submitted in the reply that the petitioner is a working lady and in her community, each & every lady is head of the family and working as head labourer of the family, mostly engaging in private employment and the petitioner is also earning a handsome income so as to maintain herself and fulfill all her needs and requirements. Further, there is no requirement to (3 of 4) [CTA-7/2017] attend the case at Anupgarh on each & every date.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner after the marriage left her matrimonial home due to harassment by respondent's family members in connection with demand of dowry and she is living with her parents at Jodhpur. A complaint has also been filed by the petitioner against respondent under secs.498A, 406, 323 IPC before ACJM (PC PNDT Act cases), Jodhpur and in that case, after investigation Police filed challan against the respondent and the petitioner has also filed documents in connection with this case. On perusal of these facts, it appears that challan has been filed and the respondent has been enlarged on bail by the ACJM (PC PNDT Act cases), Jodhpur in Case No.291/2016. The respondent has falsely stated that after investigation Final Report has been filed in his favour.
The respondent has filed Case No.166/2016 under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Additional District Judge, Anupgarh. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that she received threatening from the respondent to withdraw the criminal case filed against him and due to this threat, there is danger to her life in case she attends the court at Anupgarh. The petitioner is a lady, having no source of income and it is very inconvenient for her to travel all alone from Jodhpur to Anupgarh, which is more than 400 kms away.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the inconvenience of the petitioner lady has to be considered. In view of the above and in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap (4 of 4) [CTA-7/2017] reported in 2016 (4) WLN 237 (SC), it is a fit case to be transferred.
Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the Civil Misc. Case No.166/2016 {Jagdish v. Uga Devi}, filed by the respondent under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Additional District Judge, Anupgarh (Sri Ganganagar) is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Jodhpur.
(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.
mma