Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Bhavna Khinchi vs Gorishankar Khinchi on 21 August, 2019
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1 MCC No.386/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No.386/2019
Smt. Bhavna Khinchi Vs. Gorishankar Khinchi
Indore, Dated: 21.08.2019
Shri.Rishiraj Trivedi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri.Brijesh Garg, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard finally with consent.
By this application u/S.24 of the CPC, the applicant wife is seeking transfer of the pending divorce petition being Case No.7A/2019 from the Family Court, Ratlam to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Mhow, District Indore.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is residing with her brother at Mhow and is aged about 63 years and she has difficulty in attending the proceedings at Ratlam and prior to 2018, the respondent used to attend the proceedings u/S.125 of the Cr.P.C at Mhow, therefore, he has no difficulty in coming to Mhow and attend the proceedings in case the case is transferred.
Opposing the application, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the respondent is aged about 70 years and he is suffering from several ailments whereas the applicant is residing with her son and receiving maintenance, therefore, she has no difficulty to attend the proceedings at Ratlam.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that admittedly the distance between Ratlam and Mhow is only about 150 kms. The plea of the respondent that both the places are very Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 22/08/2019 16:40:42 2 MCC No.386/2019 well connected by rail has not been disputed before this court. The further plea of the respondent that the applicant is residing with her son at Indore has also not been refuted. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that the son of the applicant is major and he can always accompany her. That apart, the documents enclosed by the respondent along with the reply reveal that the respondent is aged about 70 years and he is suffering from several medical complications and will have difficulty in attending the proceedings at Mhow. The plea of the respondent that he is already paying Rs.10,000/- as maintenance has also not been controverted or disputed.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 has held that leniency of the court in transferring the proceedings is being misused by the women and the court is required to consider each petition on its own merits. In the matter of Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam 2017(3) MPLJ 344, the Hon.Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that the plaintiff is dominus litus and transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties and, therefore, available technology of video conferencing etc. is to be used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. This court in the matter of Anamika Pandey Vs. Shrihar Pandey 2015(4) MPLJ 187 taking note of the fact that the place where transfer is sought is at a short distance and is well connected has dismissed the petition with a direction to the respondent to pay the travelling expenses to the Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 22/08/2019 16:40:42 3 MCC No.386/2019 applicant wife. In the matter of Rekha (Smt) Vs. Virendra 2009(2) MPWN 43 this court has taken the view that the plaintiff being the dominus litus the forum should not be changed lightly. In the matter of Archna Singh (Smt.) Vs. Dilip Singh ILR [2015] MP 793 this court considering the similar application for transferring the matrimonial dispute at a distance of 200 km has held that the applicant can easily go by bus and come back and has observed that the trial court may direct payment of travelling and other expenses by the respondent and has refused to transfer the matter. Similarly this court in the matter of Rakhi Mishra Vs. Sanjay Mishra 2007(2) MPLJ 269 taking note of the fact that the Balaghat and Durg are not too far and distant places had rejected the application for transfer. In the matter of Sangeeta Bhojak Vs. Rajkumar Bhojak 2017(3)MPLJ 565 this court has taken the view that the convenience alone is not the criteria and where the wife is already represented in matrimonial matter and the case has reached the advanced stage transfer of case is not permissible. In the matter of Sandhya Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Shiv Kumar Sharma 2000(2) MPWN 152 this court has taken the view that the divorce petition should be tried at normal place and cannot be transferred on vague assertion.
Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, I am of the opinion that no case for transferring the pending proceedings is made out, however, the applicant will be entitled to travelling and lodging and boarding expenses for herself and one attendant as and Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 22/08/2019 16:40:42 4 MCC No.386/2019 when she is required to appear before the trial court and on making such an application the trial court will pass an appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
Hence, the present transfer petition is dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge vm Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 22/08/2019 16:40:42