Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aditi Chouhan vs Deepak Chouhan on 14 March, 2016
MCC-83-2016
(SMT. ADITI CHOUHAN Vs DEEPAK CHOUHAN)
14-03-2016
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that he does not wish to press IA No.2214/2016, which is an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. I.A. No.2214/2016 is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
This application under Section 24 of the CPC has been filed by the applicant seeking transfer of the HMA Case No.1261/2015 from Family Court Indore to Family Court Bhopal.
In brief, the respondent-husband has filed an application for divorce before the Family Court, Indore which is registered as HMA Case No.1261/2015. Earlier the applicant had filed MCC No.3371/2015 before the Principal Seat but it was withdrawn by order dated 11.1.2016 with liberty to file before the appropriate bench, and thereafter the present MCC has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the marriage was solemnized at Bhopal, therefore, only the Bhopal court has the jurisdiction to entertain the application for divorce. He further submits that the parental house of the applicant is at Bhopal and a case under the Domestic Violence Act is also pending at Bhopal, therefore, the present application is required to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the MCC and has submitted that in the application gross misstatement of fact has been done and that the applicant is residing at Bangalore in the flat of the respondent and she is presently working as Senior Test Engineer at Bangalore with a package of Rs.4.4 Lacs per annum. He has further referred to the passport of the applicant and has submitted that the applicant keeps on travelling to different foreign countries, therefore, she will have no difficulty in travelling to Indore and attend the court proceedings. He further submits that the applicant is an educated lady and working independently and is having close relatives at Indore, therefore, no ground for transfer is made out.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the stand of the respondent that the applicant is presently working at Bangalore, has not been controverted. The plea that the applicant is employed and is having independent source of income and widely travelling abroad, has also remained uncontroverted. Though the applicant has stated in the MCC that she is residing at Bhopal with her parents but the said plea has not been pressed at the stage of argument.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 has held that each transfer petition is required to be considered on its own merit and undue leniency is not to be shown. Relying upon the said judgment, this Court in the matter of Smt. Gurleen Kaur Vs. Mr. Kulween Singh Bagga has dismissed the MCC No.286/2013 at the instance of the wife by order dated 21.1.2014. In the similar circumstances the MCC No.412/2009 at the instance of the wife was dismissed by order dated 27.1.2010 with certain directions. Considering the aforesaid and also taking note of the material pointed out by counsel for the respondent and the uncontroverted factual situation noted above and the fact that the applicant is not residing at Bhopal where transfer has been sought, I am of the opinion that no case for transferring the HMA Case No.1261/2015 from Family Court, Indore to Family Court, Bhopal is made out. If the applicant feels that Indore Family Court has no jurisdiction, then she can raise the objection before the Family Court but the same does not furnish a ground for transferring the case.
Even otherwise the respondent has fairly stated before this Court that he is ready to bear the travelling expenses of the applicant on the dates she appears before the Family Court at Indore.
Hence, the present MCC is disposed of by directing that whenever the applicant is required to appear before the Family Court Indore, she would be paid the necessary travelling and lodging boarding expenses by the respondent which may be fixed by the Family Court. C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE