Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 388 (MP)

Renu Gupta v. Devendra Kumar Gupta

2008-03-10

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is directed by the applicant-wife under Section 24 of the CPC for transferring the C. O. S. no. 1-A/07 filed by the respondent-husband in the Family Court, Jabalpur to Family Court, Rewa. ( 2. ) AS per averments of the petition the applicant got married with the respondent on dated 9. 5. 02 at Satna in accordance with rites and rituals of hindu Community. Subsequent to such marriage on arising the matrimonial dispute between them, the respondent filed the aforesaid petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage in the family Court at Jabalpur while on account of the aforesaid dispute the appellant is residing at Rewa alongwith her brothers, aged eighteen years, sixteen years and ten years respectively and one unmarried sister, aged twenty four years. Her father being an old aged person is unable to do any work and he is not in a position to accompany the applicant to defend the aforesaid case at Jabalpur on every hearing. Besides this, she does not have any source of income to afford the travelling and other expenses to defend the case at Jabalpur. It is very inconvenient for her to come and defend the case at Jabalpur on every date. In the absence of any competent male person in the family to accompany her, she can not travel all alone. On earlier occasion in connection of such case when she came to Jabalpur the respondent-husband with number of persons threatened her to give consent for divorce else she will have to face the serious consequence. Therefore, under such circumstances she is not safe at Jabalpur if she comes to defend the case and prayed to transfer the case. ( 3. ) IN reply of the respondent the grounds stated by the applicant for transfer of the case are denied. In addition, it is stated that the applicant did not disclose the reason to reside at Rewa while her parents are residing at satna. In such way her conduct is suspicious. It is pleaded that the respondent is praying the maintenance and alimony money to the applicant as per direction of the court, inspite it this petition is preferred on the false pretext only to harass the respondent-husband. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. ( 4. In such way her conduct is suspicious. It is pleaded that the respondent is praying the maintenance and alimony money to the applicant as per direction of the court, inspite it this petition is preferred on the false pretext only to harass the respondent-husband. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. ( 4. ) SHRI R. S. Jaiswal, learned Sr. Adv assisted by Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant-wife by mentioning the aforesaid facts, stated in the petition and placing his reliance on the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, air 2002 SUPREME COURT 396 said that inconvenience and hardship of the women should be given preference in the matter of transfer of the case and prayed to allow this petition. ( 5. ) ON the other hand Ku. Beena Nair, learned counsel for the respondent by referring the averments stated in the reply and placing her reliance on the reported case of the Apex Court in the matter of Anindita das Vs. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 said that the principle laid down in such case is directly applicable to the present case for dismissal of the petition. She has also given an undertaking on behalf of the respondent that the respondent is ready and willing to afford the travelling and other expenses of the applicant to defend the aforesaid case at Jabalpur and in such premises she prayed for dismissal of the petition. ( 6. ) HAVING heard learned consel before giving any finding on merits of this petition I would like to mention the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case Anindita Das (supra) in which it was held as under: "3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women. 4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women. 4. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child in this case, it six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit when the petitioner is required to attend the court at Delhi. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has no source of income is adequately met. 5. Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merits. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out. " 6. Accordingly, we dismiss the transfer petition. We however, direct that the respondent shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and very occasion when she is required to attend the court at Delhi. ( 7. ) IN the aforesaid case it has been directed that every transfer petition should be considered on its own merits independently. In the aforesaid case the applicant-wife was having a son of six years, alongwith hem she was residing with her parents. On giving undertaking by the husband to afford the expenses for attending the case at the husband place the transfer petition was dismissed, although the case cited by the applicants counsel has not been referred in the aforesaid Anindita Das (supra) case but same has been decided by the Apex Court after considering the various earlier decisions of such court. Thus, in the present matter, the case cited by the applicant is not helping to the applicant. It is undisputed fact that the applicant does not have any issue with her. Thus, on providing the appropriate sum for travelling and other expenses she may come and defend the case at Jabalpur. Thus, in the present matter, the case cited by the applicant is not helping to the applicant. It is undisputed fact that the applicant does not have any issue with her. Thus, on providing the appropriate sum for travelling and other expenses she may come and defend the case at Jabalpur. So far ground of threat is concerned, I have not found any supporting evidence like report or the facts of particular incident. Thus, such ground does not appear to be genuine in the available circumstances. In such circumstances, the aforesaid Anindita Das (supra) is directly applicable to the present case and in such premises this petition deserves to dismissed but with some directions to the respondent to afford the expenses of the applicant for defending the case at Jabalpur as she does not have any source of earning to afford the travelling and other expenses. ( 8. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is being dismissed with following directions: ( I ) I am told by the applicants counsel that to travel a person by train from Rewa to Jabalpur requires Rs. 100/-per person for one side and the same has not been disputed by other side. Hence it is directed that the respondent shall pay Rs. 400/-in advance to the applicant for herself and a companion for to and fro journey between Rewa to Jabalpur for every hearing to attend and defend the case at Jabalpur and the applicant is directed to submit the concerning travelling tickets or bills before the trial court on every next hearing of the case. ( II ) Besides the aforesaid travel expenses, the respondent shall also pay Rs. 600/-for every hearing as expenses of stay at Jabalpur as she will have to come a day before of hearing and she may go back after attending the case in the evening or next day. ( III ) If the aforesaid sums are not paid by the respondent to the applicant even for a single hearing, then the applicant shall be at liberty to file the fresh petition to transfer the case from Jabalpur to Rewa. ( IV ) It is clarified that the aforesaid sums are to be paid besides the payment directed or may be directed as interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. ( IV ) It is clarified that the aforesaid sums are to be paid besides the payment directed or may be directed as interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. The same shall not be adjusted in the aforesaid sum in any manner. ( V ) The applicant shall be at liberty to move application for exemption before the trial court on a date when her presence is not required but it is clarified that the respondent shall have no right to curtail her rights, if she desires and come to defend her case on every date. ( 9. ) THE petition stand dismissed with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to the costs.