Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ankita vs Satyam Mishra on 16 August, 2018
1 MCC-905-2018 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCC-905-2018 (SMT. ANKITA Vs SATYAM MISHRA) 3 Jabalpur, Dated : 16-08-2018 Shri Mukesh Kumar Sulakhe, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Abhay Gupta, Advocate for the non-applicant. The applicant has filed this application under Section 24 of the CPC for transferring the matrimonial case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Betul bearing No.C.S. 227-A/2017 filed by non- applicant for seeking decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to the Family Court, Balaghat.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is residing at Betul with her old aged mother, who is ailing and there is no other male person in her family to provide any assistance to her to travel from Balaghat to Betul. She has also shown difficulty in frequently visiting Betul to attend the Court case. She has also submitted that there is no direct conveyance available from Balaghat to reach Betul and hence she has made request that the said case be transferred from Betul to Balaghat.
Per contra, the non-applicant has opposed the request made by the applicant saying that the distance is only 300 kms and brother of the applicant is there to assist her. It is also contended by the non-applicant that case filed by him could be concluded in 3-4 hearings, if the applicant comes and attend the case at Betul. He submits that the applicant is in habit of committing cruelty and therefore under the compelling circumstances he filed a petition for seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. He submits that on a false complaint made by the applicant, he and his family members were arrested by the police for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and thereafter they have been released on bail. It is also contended by the non-applicant that merely because the applicant is facing some difficulty and attending the case is inconvenient for her, the case cannot be transferred from one place to another.
In view of the arguments advanced by the parties and considering the provisions available under the law for transferring the case from one place to another, the grounds raised by the applicant do not constitute any sufficient cause under which this Court can exercise the power provided 2 MCC-905-2018 under Section 24 of CPC. Although it is a matrimonial case and some inconvenience could be caused to the applicant to attend the case at Betul but she can be suitably compensated. Whatever expenses incurred in attending the case, the same could be paid by the husband/non-applicant and accordingly appropriate application can be moved by the wife before the Court where the case is pending.
In a routine manner cases are not transferred from one Court to another. The inconvenience shown by the applicant is not of that standard which does not give reason to this Court to exercise the power under Section 24 of the CPC. Only good and sufficient grounds can justify the order of transfer of a pending case from one place to another. Thus, in my opinion, it is not a fit case in which the Court should exercise the power under Section 24 of CPC directing transfer of matrimonial case from Betul to Balaghat.
Accordingly, the application being sans merit, is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to move an application before the concerned Family Court for seeking adequate amount which she may spend for attending the case at Betul. This Court hopes and trust that the Family Court shall make all endeavours to conclude the case expeditiously by not giving any adjournment unnecessarily.
MCC is disposed of in the above terms.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Digitally signed by SUDESH shukla KUMAR SHUKLA Date: 2018.08.17 15:09:09 +05'30'