Jharkhand High Court
Sapna Kumari vs Himanshu Shekhar Thakur --- --- Opp. ... on 21 August, 2020
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 62 of 2019
----
Sapna Kumari --- --- Petitioner
Versus
Himanshu Shekhar Thakur --- --- Opp. Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Advocate
----
07/ 21.08.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. Awanish Shekhar for the opposite party-husband through Video Conferencing.
2. Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of Original (Divorce) Suit No. 96/2019 instituted by the opposite party on grounds of cruelty and desertion before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda.
3. During pendency of this proceeding, mediation has failed. As per the petitioner, marriage between the parties was performed on 02 nd March 2014 and because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and torture, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the instant suit has been instituted under section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar. Petitioner is living with her 80 years old ailing father and has to face difficulty in attending the matrimonial suit at Deoghar by travelling on every date from Godda. On the other hand, she had lodged an FIR being Godda (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 04/2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 300/2018 under section 498A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the opposite party and her in-laws, which is pending before the Court of learned C.J.M., Godda and it is also being attended by the opposite party. Efforts for mediation in matrimonial suit have failed as opposite party did not appear at the mediation centre. She has alleged instances of misbehaviour with her and her father during course of visit to Deoghar. As such, she has prayed for transfer of the suit from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, otherwise it would be onerous and expensive for her to contest the proceedings at Deoghar having no independent source of income.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that the opposite party is working in Uttar Pradesh. Deoghar has good train connection from U.P and he has to come from U.P to attend the case at Deoghar. Petitioner may not have difficulty in commuting from Godda which is only at a distance of 60 k.m. In fact, opposite party may have great difficulty in attending the suit at Godda after coming from his place of posting in U.P. Therefore, grounds urged by the petitioner are lacking in substance.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances pleaded above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the opposite party is already facing a criminal case at Godda instituted by the petitioner which he is pursuing and the petitioner being a lady, staying with her 80 years old father, has no independent source of income, it would be onerous for her to attend the proceedings at Deoghar and the matrimonial suit may not be properly contested. Therefore, in the fitness of things, let Original (Divorce) Suit No. 96/2019 be transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda. Let the records of Original (Divorce) Suit No. 96/2019 be sent forthwith to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda. This application is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/