Gujarat High Court
Ushaben Hiteshbhai Parmar vs Hiteshbhai V Parmar....Opponent(S) on 17 June, 2014
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
C/MCA/524/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 524 of 2014
================================================================
USHABEN HITESHBHAI PARMAR....Applicant(s)
Versus
HITESHBHAI V PARMAR....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
KHUSHBU H DANECHA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date : 17/06/2014
ORAL ORDER
Present Misc. Civil Application is filed by the applicant - wife praying that:
"13.(b) Allow this Misc. Civil Application by transferring the Family Suit filed by the opponent being case No.2 of 2014 before the Principal Judge Family Court at Rajkot to Civil Court Gandhidham."
Heard learned advocate Ms.Khushbu Danecha for the applicant - wife.
Rule. Learned advocate Mr. R. P. Raval waives service of Rule for the respondent - husband.
With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
Page 1 of 3 C/MCA/524/2014 ORDERLearned advocate Mr. Raval for the respondent has invited attention of the Court to various paragraphs and pages in support of his contention that the applicant has not come out with all correct facts and there are incorrect statements made in the application. He referred to some paragraphs of present application i.e. para-3 at page-3, para-5 at page 4, para nos.8, 9 and 10 at page-6 and also para-5 at page 13 of the application at Annexure-A which shows that the amount deposited by the husband towards maintenance of the son is not withdrawn by the applicant - wife.
Present applicant is seeking transfer of the suit from Rajkot to Gandhidham as the applicant - wife is residing at Gandhidham.
The Court has to take pragmatic view in the matter and the fact that the amount deposited is not withdrawn by the applicant - wife cannot be a factor against her. The presumption is to be that there must be some pressing circumstances which prevent the applicant - wife from withdrawing the amount deposited for the son. The fact that the husband is a practicing doctor is sufficient to show that he will be able to attend the proceedings at Gandhidham.
Learned advocate Mr. Raval was asked to take instruction whether the husband is willing to pay transportation expenses to the wife to attend the proceedings at Rajkot.
On instructions, learned advocate submitted that his Page 2 of 3 C/MCA/524/2014 ORDER client is ready and willing to pay the same.
But the same is not necessarily benefit the husband. The willingness for payment of amount of transportation expenses is not a decisive factor because from Gandhidham to Rajkot, the applicant - wife will be required to be accompanied by someone and during that period her minor son will be required to be look after by someone.
Taking into consideration the same, the present application is allowed. Family Suit No.2 of 2014 filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot is transferred to Civil Court, Gandhidham.
At the joint request, the Civil Court, Gadhidham is requested to give top priority to the proceedings of the Family Suit No.2 of 2014 and decide the same as early as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) ila Page 3 of 3