Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Arti Patel @ Arti Khojar vs Surendra Patel on 25 October, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1777 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT ARTI PATEL @ ARTI KHOJAR W/O SURENDRA
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE D/O LALJI PRASAD KHOJAR R/O VILLAGE
KACHARKONA, TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA, DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ANURAG SHIVHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
SURENDRA PATEL S/O SHRI CHANDAN SINGH PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O H.NO. B-41, NIRMAL
ESTATE COLONY, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAKESH KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application filed under section 24 of The Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C." for the sake of brevity) by the applicant who is wife of the respondent, seeking transfer of Case No. RCS HM-0001364/2021 (Surendra Patel vs. Smt. Arti Patel) under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, filed by the respondent/husband from II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal to Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/28/2023 1:48:28 PM 22. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant/wife that the marriage of the applicant/wife as well as respondent/husband was solemnized on 25.06.2020 at Narsinghpur. However, certain matrimonial disputes were crept up which gave birth to litigations. Thereafter, the applicant/wife filed a complaint against the respondent/husband under Sections 12 and 18 to 21 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending before the III Additional Judge to Civil Judge Class-II Tendukheka, District Narsinghpur vide Case No.MJCR/0000024/2021. An application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was also filed before the III Additional Judge to Civil Judge Class-II Tendukheka, District Narsinghpur vide Case No.MJCR/23/2021 and a FIR has also been registered against the respondent/husband at Police Station Tendukheda for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC. It is further contended by the counsel that the respondent/husband has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Bhopal and the distance between two places is approximately 285 Kms. and as the applicant/wife is resident of Tendukheda and has no source of income, therefore, ensuring her appearance in Family Court, Bhopal on scheduled dates so fixed by the Court of her appearance, would cause immense hardship as well as inconvenience for the applicant/wife to appear before the Family Court, Bhopal where the case is filed by the respondent/husband. It is also contended by the counsel that as there are three cases already pending in the Court of Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur, the respondent/husband can very well attend the other case also, if the same is transferred to Narsinghpur.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband contends that Signature Not Verified the petition filed by the applicant/wife deserves to be dismissed. It is contended Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/28/2023 1:48:28 PM 3 by the counsel that the applicant/wife can very well appear at Narsinghpur, as Narsinghpur is well connected with the Bhopal and there are more than five trains per day, therefore, the same would not cause any hardship to the applicant/wife. It is further contended by the counsel that the applicant/wife is not required to appear on each dates, on the contrary, the applicant/wife can enter her appearance through her counsel. It is also contended by the counsel that this Court in MCC No.3082/2022 (Smt. Priyanshu Mishra vs. Vinay Mishra) and various other matters, has permitted the parties to enter appearance through video conferencing, therefore, submits that present petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.
4. Parties have not argued or pressed any other point.
5. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
6. Undisputedly, the applicant/wife and respondent/husband are resident of Narsinghpur and Bhopal respectively. The distance between two places is approximately 285 kms. The applicant/wife has already filed a complaint under Sections 12 and 18 to 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is pending before the Court of III Additional Judge to Civil Judge, Class-II, Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur. The applicant/wife has also moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is also pending before the Court of III Additional Judge to Civil Judge, Class-II Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur and a First Information Report has also been filed by the applicant/wife against the respondent/husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur and after investigation, a charge-sheet has Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/28/2023 1:48:28 PM 4 been filed before the Court of III Additional Judge to Civil Judge, Class-II, Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur. It is also evident that the distance between two places is approximately 285 Kms, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, it is the case where convenience of the wife is required to be taken into consideration.
7. The Apex court in paragraph 9 in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravan Kartik [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199] held as under :
9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of t h e Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Rajni Kishore Pardeshi vs. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 held in para 4 as under:-
" 4. In this type of matter, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hindu Marriage Petition No. 6 of 2004, Kishor Babulal Pardeshi vs. Rajani Kishor Pardeshi pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panvel, Mumbai, Maharashtra is transferred to the Family Court of proper jurisdiction at Satana, Madhya Pradesh."
9. In view of the aforesaid, while taking into consideration the hard-ship as well as inconvenience to the applicant/wife, the case bearing RCS HM No.0001364/2021 is transferred from II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal to Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Narsinghpur Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/28/2023 1:48:28 PM 5 on 22/11/2023.
11. With the aforesaid, this MCC stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/28/2023 1:48:28 PM