Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2320 (RAJ)

Dimple Soni v. Praven Kumar

2012-12-15

VINEET KOTHARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - None present for the respondent despite service, 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner Dimple Soni seeking transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 62 of 2010. Praveen Kumar v. Smt. Dimple under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nagaur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while submitted that transfer of proceedings is sought on the ground that Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are pending at Bikaner and a complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. has been filed her at Bikaner and therefore, to facilitate the litigations between the parties in the present matrimonial dispute, the present case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act deserves to be transferred from Nagaur to Bikaner. He submitted that the petitioner being lady, travel of 125 kms. from Bikaner to Nagaur cannot be undertaken by her and she has five years' old son. He has also submitted that the respondent-husband tried to snatch away the custody of the son at Bikaner, for which a F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner at Bikaner on 8.9.2010 and therefore, looking to her security reason, the case deserves to be transferred. 5. The marriage in question took place on 16.11.2005 at Bikaner and the son Nakul was born on 8.7.2006 and it is stated in the application that in the month of August, 2009, the petitioner was thrown out of the matrimonial home and since then she is living with her parents at Bikaner and present application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the respondent-husband just a counter-blast to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Nagaur. 6. This Court in the case of Smt. Ekta Solanki v. Johny Solanki, S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 58 of 2008 decided on 20.10.2009 held that mere convenience of wife is not a sufficient ground to transfer the proceedings from one place to another. The relevant extract from Para 5 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: "5. Having heard the learned counsels and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to transfer the proceedings from Udaipur to jodhpur at the instance of the petitioner. The relevant extract from Para 5 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference: "5. Having heard the learned counsels and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to transfer the proceedings from Udaipur to jodhpur at the instance of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner has not made bonafide efforts for compromise in the matter and is not really willing to go back to her matrimonial home with her son and live in her matrimonial home and serve her parents-in-law. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in the matrimonial dispute in hands, it cannot be said that mere convenience of the petitioner-wife is a good ground to transfer the proceedings from Udaipur to jodhpur. May be, if the proceedings are conducted at Udaipur and the petitioner-wife has to attend the proceedings at Udaipur, the chances of reconciliation between the parties may reopen some day. Accordingly at this stage, the Court is not inclined to transfer the proceedings from Udaipur to jodhpur at the instance of the petitioner-wife. The transfer application is accordingly rejected." 7. The marriage in question took place at Bikaner. However, the respondent- husband who is living at Nagaur has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Nagaur. This Court is of the opinion that the marriage has fallen apart after about four years and a child is born out of the wedlock. The contents of the F.I.R. may also indicate that the respondent-husband was trying to take custody of his own son out of his natural love and affection for his son. Even proceedings initiated by lady under Section 498A I.P.C. are some times. a sheer abuse of process of law. After four years of marriage and birth of a son, such allegations may not be true altogether in the present case as well. Some times, going to the place of husband's residence which is only 125 kms. Even proceedings initiated by lady under Section 498A I.P.C. are some times. a sheer abuse of process of law. After four years of marriage and birth of a son, such allegations may not be true altogether in the present case as well. Some times, going to the place of husband's residence which is only 125 kms. away may even increase the possibilities of compromise and mutual settlement, by intervention of friends and relatives and therefore, mere some inconvenience of travelling by petitioner-wife cannot be a sole ground to transfer the proceedings filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein the husband is seeking restitution of conjugal rights and no substantial contra reasons have been assigned by the petitioner-wife. 8. Accordingly, the present transfer petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties and the learned Court below forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******