Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 75 (JHR)

Neelam Kumari v. Deepak Kumar Jaiswal

2005-01-28

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 10/2004, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 61/2004 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro at Chas or to any other competent Court, Bokaro at Chas and to direct him to hear Title (Matrimonial Suit No. 54/2004 along with Matrimonial Case No. 61/2004 at Bokaro. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent along with his brothers and friends abducted her forcibly from her residence i.e. Qr. No. 318, Sector III/E, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro on 3.11.2003 while she was alone in the house. A marriage certificate was obtained fraudulently, which is colourable and void. The petitioner has filed a petition on 11.5.2004 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro against the respondent for declaring the said marriage certificate, issued from the office of Non-Official Marriage Officer, Raghunathpur Sub-Division, District Purulia (WB), as null and void under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act. The said petition has been registered as matrimonial Suit No. 54/2004 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. The respondent, on the other hand, has filed the matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Case No. 61/2004 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi for restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been submitted in the petition that there is no adult male member to accompany the petitioner to attend the Court at Ranchi. It has been stated that the petitioner is residing at Bokaro Steel City along with her father and the distance of Ranchi from Bokaro Steel City is about 150 K.Ms (one way) and in that view, she has to travel about 300 K.Ms to attend the said suit at Ranchi. The petitioners father is an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and he has no time to accompany the petitioner from Bokaro to Ranchi on different dates. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but no counter affidavit has been filed by him. 4. According to the respondent, he has taken relevant grounds in his transfer petition filed by him being 5/2004. 5. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but no counter affidavit has been filed by him. 4. According to the respondent, he has taken relevant grounds in his transfer petition filed by him being 5/2004. 5. In view of the nature of the controversy, this Court tried for reconciliation between the parties and for that purpose two dates were fixed and the parties were also called in person and they appeared. This Court as well as the counsel for the parties tried their best, but conciliation could not be possible. The matter, therefore, was heard on merit. 6. Mr. S.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the wife Neelam Kumari in both the cases, submitted that his client is of young age and in view of the law and order situation, it is not safe to travel alone from Bokaro Steel City to Ranchi to attend the matrimonial case at Ranchi. According to the learned counsel, the girls father is a handicapped person and also is an employee of the Bokaro Steel City. It is not possible for the girls father to accompany her to Ranchi from Bokaro to attend the case. There is no other male member in the family who can accompany her for the said purpose on different dates fixed in the case at Ranchi. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in matrimonial cases, convenience of wife has tobe considered and particularly in the cases dealing with the transfer petition. Learned counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 , Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr., and the decision of this Court reported in 2003(1) JCR 140 , Sujata Devi v, Pramod Kumar Yadav. 8. Mr. N.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband Deepak Kumar Jaiswal in both the cases, on the other hand, submitted that the Matrimonial Case No. 61/2004, has been filed earlier by the husband for restitution of conjugal right and on coming to know about the said suit, Matrimonial Suit No. 54/2004 has been filed at Bokaro as a counter blast to the said suit. According to him, the suit at Bokaro itself has been filed with malafide motive. Learned counsel further submitted that Bokaro and Ranchi is connected with good transport facility and the girl even can travel alone from Bokaro to Ranchi. According to him, the suit at Bokaro itself has been filed with malafide motive. Learned counsel further submitted that Bokaro and Ranchi is connected with good transport facility and the girl even can travel alone from Bokaro to Ranchi. Fear expressed by her is only psychological and no inconvenience has been expressed by her in the petition. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, I find that admittedly Neelam Kumari lives with her parents at Bokaro. Her father is an employee of Bokaro Steel City. In course of conciliation, I have occasion to see the girls father who is a handicapped person and he had himself expressed his inability in undertaking frequent travelling due to his physical incapacity. The respondent Deepak Kumar Jaiswal is a young man and he can easily attend the cases at Bokaro. Since two suits have been instituted at two different places, it would be convenient for the parties if the said suits are heard together at one place. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the girl, I am of view that both the suits should be heard at Bokaro where one suit being Matrimonial Suit, No. 54/2004 is already pending. In that view, Matrimonial Suit No. 61/2004 pending in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi is transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. Both the applications are, accordingly disposed of.