Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 151 (ALL)

Pushpa Lodhi v. Anup Kant Singh

2014-01-13

ANIL KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. The matter is taken up in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard Sri Satish Agarwal, holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 3. By means of the present application, the applicant has prayed that the case no. 521 of 2010 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao? (Anup Kant Singh vs. Pushpa Lodhi be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the said relief submits that the applicant Smt. Pushpa Lodhi got married with Anup Kant Singh on 10.03.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Thereafter, the relations between the husband and the wife have become strange due to the fact that the applicant has been harassed by her husband as well as her in-laws for demand of dowry and car, which cannot be met out by the father of the applicant, who is a poor labourer and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Since then, she is living in her parental house at Lucknow. 5. Thereafter, the opposite party/husband filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights registered as case no. 521 of 2010 before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao, which is pending for consideration. 6. Subsequently, on behalf of the applicant, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow registered as Case no. 1110 of 2010. 7. In view of the said facts, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant who is a poor lady and has no source of livelihood. Accordingly, the case no. 521 of 2010 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao (Anup Kant Singh vs. Pushpa Lodhi) be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 9. On 21.12.2010, this Court has passed the order, the relevant portion of which is quoted below: - "Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is residing at Lucknow and one case of the applicant is also pending at Lucknow, therefore, the case pending at Unnao may be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. 9. On 21.12.2010, this Court has passed the order, the relevant portion of which is quoted below: - "Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is residing at Lucknow and one case of the applicant is also pending at Lucknow, therefore, the case pending at Unnao may be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. Prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant seems to be genuine looking to the various difficulties indicated by the applicant. In this view of the matter, further proceedings in the court below shall remain stayed till the next date of listing". 10. On 17.07.2013, Office has submitted a report regarding service inter alia stating therein that the steps for registered notice with AD was taken on 22.01.2013.? The closed envelop & A.D. has not been returned till date. 11. In view of the said fact, on 24.07.2013 this Court has again passed an order for service, which is quoted herein below: - "Perused the office report regarding service of this petition under Section 24 C.P.C on sole respondent. However, in the interest of justice, let fresh steps be taken for service by registered post within a week. List after service. Interim order granted earlier is made absolute". 12. In response to the same, applicant has taken steps on 09.12.2013. The office has submitted a report stating therein that the service upon respondent is deemed sufficient. 13. As stated above, when the matter was taken in the revised cause list, neither respondent nor counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the record, the position which emerges out is that in the present case, the applicant/ Pushpa Lodhi has been tortured by her husband including her in-laws and has left her matrimonial house. Since then, she is living with her parents and has no other means to maintain herself. 15. Keeping in view the said facts as well as law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480 . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under : - "The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. 15. Keeping in view the said facts as well as law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480 . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under : - "The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent has filed a matrimonial suit being HMA No.748 of 2000, titled Rabi Shankar Mukherjee v. Leena Mukherjee in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. The petitioner is a resident of Durgapur, District-Burdwan, West Bengal. She states that she is a distressed woman without any financial resources and that with the meagre income which she gets by way of maintenance, it is not possible for her to travel from Durgapur to Delhi to prosecute the case. She also submits that there is nobody to accompany her to Delhi. The above fact is not traversed in the counter-affidavit. Having regard to the circumstances, we think that it would be appropriate to order transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. Accordingly, HMA No.748 of 2000 pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi shall stand transferred to the District Judge, Burdwan, West Bengal, who may try the case himself or assign it to any other court having jurisdiction to try the case." As well as the fact that the balance of convenience and sympathy is always with the wife and if a transfer application has been moved on her behalf for transfer of case to a place where she is residing from a place where the same is instituted and the same shall be decided in her favour as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 4. (See also Smt. Kuhu Banerjee vs. Sanjeev Rai Chaudhary and another 2009 (27) LCD 1162 .) 16. For the foregoing reasons, transfer petition is allowed and the case no. 521 of 2010 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unnao (Anup Kant Singh vs. Pushpa Lodhi) is transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.