Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1100 (MP)

Pratibha Mishra v. Mukesh Mishra

2010-10-28

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2010
ORDER U.C. Maheshwam, J. 1. This petition is preferred by the applicant/wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the Hindu Marriage Case No. 218-A/07 filed by the Respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court Satna, from such Court to the Family court of Umaria. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant got married with the Respondent long before on 22.5.02 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. Subsequent to marriage, on arising some differences between them, under compulsion, the applicant is residing separately at Beersingpurpali. At the instance of the applicant, a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance was also filed in the Court of Beersingpurpali district Umaria which has been allowed on dated 16.1.09. As per further submission, the applicant is not able to defend her case at Satna because the Respondent is having connections with the antisocial elements of Satna and, in such premises, there is apprehension in the mind of the applicant that at any moment, on going to Satna for defending the case, she may be killed by the Respondent. Besides this, the transfer is also prayed on the ground of distance of both the places i.e near about 200 KM. So, being woman, it is not possible for her to go all-alone for defending such case at Satna. As per further averments she is also under apprehension that the fair trial could not be held at Satna because she has to face the undue pressure of the Respondent on every date at such place. With these averments the applicant has filed this petition. 3. In reply of the Respondent all the aforesaid grounds stated in the petition for transferring the case are specifically denied. It is also stated that the applicant being employee of the education department, is working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II at some place of district Umaria which is only 50 KM far away from district Satna where she is residing with the family of her real uncle, aunt and maternal uncle. She is in a position to defend the case conveniently at Satna. She is in a position to defend the case conveniently at Satna. It is also stated that in compliance of the order of the trial court, Respondent is regularly paying her the travelling and other expenses to defend the case at Satna and prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. 4. The applicant's counsel by referring the facts stated in the petition argued that keeping in view the convenience and difficulty of the applicant, the aforesaid case deserves to be transferred from Satna to Umaria. He also placed his reliance on reported cases of the Apex Court in the matter of (1) Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani- AIR 2009 SCW 790 and (2) Fatema v. Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez)- AIR 2009 SCW 1347. While counsel of the Respondent by referring the averments of the reply said that mere apprehension in the mind of the applicant is not sufficient to allow the petition and according to him in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das- (2006) 9 SCC 197 , this petition deserves to be dismissed and prayed for the same. 5. Having heard the counsel, after perusing the petition, reply and the papers placed on the record, it appears that this petition is preferred on behalf of the applicant only on some apprehension and fear in her mind. As in order to prove the allegation leveled against the Respondent no document has been placed on the record, on which, it could be assumed that any unhappy incident had taken placed between the parties earlier on visiting Satna by the applicant for defending the aforesaid case. Thus mere on the basis of apprehension in the mind of the applicant, by allowing this petition, the case could not be transferred from Satna to Umaria. Besides this, looking to the distance of near about 200 KM between Satna and Umaria and the circumstance that the applicant being working woman in the education department, is regularly going to attend the duty at her working place, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Anindita Das (Supra), the impugned case, mere on the whims of the applicant, by allowing this petition, could not be transferred from Satna to Umaria. Consequently this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. Consequently this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. So far the case laws cited on behalf of the applicant are concerned, they were decided taking into consideration the long distance between the two cities i.e. from Indore to Bombay in the earlier case Anjali Ashok Sadhwani (supra) and from Aurangabad to Jammu & Kashmir in the later case Fatema v. Jafri Syed Husain (supra), hence the same being distinguishable on facts, are not helping to the applicant. 7. However, the trial court is directed that in future, if any application is preferred on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to provide the security for defending the case at Satna then such court shall consider the same in accordance with the law for providing such security. 8. The petition is dismissed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to the cost.