Jharkhand High Court
Rachana Pandey Alias Pooja vs Sanjeev Singh And Anr on 14 February, 2017
Author: Amitav K. Gupta
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tr. Petition (C) No.55 of 2016
With
I.A. No.6075 of 2016
Rachana Pandey & Pooja, W/o Sanjeev Singh, and D/o
Sri Devendra Pandey, Permanent resident of Village -
Poktha, P.O. & P.S. - Obra, District - Aurangabad, Bihar,
Presently residing at Qr. No.B-10/271, New B. Type,
Triple Story, Godri Para (Chirimiri), P.O. - Kurasia, P.S. -
Chirimiri, District - Korea, Pin No.497553,
Chhattishgarh ...... Petitioner
Versus
Sanjeev Singh & Anr. ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praful Jojo, Advocate
For the O.Ps. : Mr. A. K. Das, Advocate
---------
06/Dated: 14th February, 2017
The present petition has been filed for transfer of MTS No.69 of 2013, filed by opposite party/ husband, and MTS No.33 of 2014, filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that marriage was solemnized on 13.02.2012 at Aurangabad, Bihar and the present suit has been instituted by opposite party/ husband at Ranchi in which the petitioner appeared and she has also filed MTS No.33 of 2014 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar. That the petitioner does not have any source of income and she is facing great hardship and inconvenience as she is unable to bear the cost in prosecuting her case at Ranchi since she has to pay expenses to the witnesses. That the O.P/ husband's father is a practicing advocate at Civil Courts Ranchi and he has been threatening the petitioner's advocate. That the petitioner feels insecure in attending the court at Ranchi.
On the above grounds, it is prayed that both the aforesaid cases be transferred to Palamau at Daltonganj, which is nearer to place of her residence at Aurangabad, Bihar.
- 02 -
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner/ wife had approached the Supreme Court and filed an application for transfer of the case from Jharkhand to Aurangabad (Bihar) in Transfer Petition (S) (Criminal) No(s).296 of 2016, which was dismissed as no valid grounds were made out. It is submitted that O.P/ husband is paying maintenance per month, hence, the argument or plea of the petitioner that she does not have sufficient means of income stands falsified.
4. Heard. Admittedly, the petitioner/ wife's application for transfer of the case from Ranchi (Jharkhand) to Aurangabad (Bihar) has been dismissed by the Apex Court and reasons assigned by the petitioner that she is facing difficulty in prosecuting the case in the court at Ranchi and simultaneously she wants the transfer of the case from Ranchi to Palamau at Daltonganj is not accepted for the reasons that when she can attend the courts at Palamu (Daltonganj) then there is no plausible explanation as to why she cannot prosecute the case in the court of Family Judge, Ranchi. Admittedly she has instituted matrimonial suit before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Thus, there is no justification for entertaining the prayer of the petitioner.
5. However, the O.P/ husband shall pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) as travel expense to the petitioner/ wife on the dates she attends the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in the aforesaid matrimonial suits.
6. With the said direction and observation, the transfer petition stands dismissed.
7. Consequently, I.A. No.6075 of 2016 also stands dismissed.
(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.) Chandan /-