Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lila Sahu vs Kailash Narayan Sahu on 12 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: I(1993)DMC108
Author: D.M. Dharmadhikari
Bench: D.M. Dharmadhikari
JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. This is a petition by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Matrimonial proceedings pending at Bhopal to Jabalpur. The husband has instituted proceedings for divorce against the wife at Bhopal, on the basis of jurisdiction derived by that Court as the parties had last jointly resided together at Bhopal, in accordance with Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the wife sought transfer of the proceedings from Bhopal to Jabalpur, firstly on the ground that wife is employed in the Co-operative Bank at Jabalpur, she has two sons who are taking education at Jabalpur and it would be inconvenient and expensive for her to attend the court proceedings at Bhopal.
3. According to me this cannot be said to be a good ground, particularly when it is admitted that the sons are grown up, aged thirteen and fourteen and are not of the age in which they are required to accompany (he mother always. So far as the expenses are concerned, (be wife being employed, she can meet these same and if not, it is open to her to claim expenses under Section 24 of the Act by making suitable application to the Court at Bhopal.
4. It is then urged that the wife will be required to take leave off and that would cause great inconvenience. So far as this inconvenience is concerned, it would apply equally to both. The husband is also employed as a stenographer in the Secretariate and if the proceedings are transferred to Jabalpur, he will also be required to obtain leave and incur expenses of journey. In a case where there is a choice of forum, the husband cannot be forced to choose a forum which is not convenient to him.
5. The counsel for the wife then submitted that on behalf of the wife. proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights have been instituted in the Court at Jabalpur and it would be convenient that Bhopal case is transferred to Jabalpur and tried together. In the above respect, the counsel for the wife could not dispute .that restitution proceedings were instituted by the wife at Jabalpur after filing of the divorce proceedings at Bhopal. In such a situation provisions of Section 21-A(2)(b) of the Act are attracted which provide that if there are two petitions pending between the parties in two different Courts, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the Court in which the earlier one is pending. That apart under Section 23A of the Act, it is open to the wife to file a counter claim in the proceedings for divorce to claim relief of restitution against the husband. It is, therefore, not necessary to transfer the case at Bhopal to Jabalpur, so is to grant necessary relief to the wife which she can well claim and obtain in the court at Bhopal itself.
6. Learned counsel for the wife placed reliance on two decisions of this Court reported in Megna Devi Bhatnagar v. Mahesh Prasad Bhatnagar I(1986)DMC31 and Munibai v. Lokprasad Tiwari, 1989 (I) MP.W N. 68. These cases are distinguished on facts. In the matter of transfer there can be no hard and fast rule and each case will have to be judged on its own facts.
7. Consequently, the petition having no force is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The order dated 13-2-1990 granting stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 102-A/86 pending in the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, is hereby vacated. The Matrimonial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case expeditiously, as Contemplated by the provisions of Section 21B of the Act.