Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 705 (MP)

Raju Kumar Prajapati v. State of M. P.

2014-06-23

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that they have solemnized marriage on their own volition at Gwalior. Their family members are not happy with the marriage and therefore, there is a threat to the petitioners from the family members. It is alleged that there is threat from respondent No. 5. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. As per address of petitioners and respondent No. 5, it is clear that they are residing at Jhansi within the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh. They only solemnized marriage at Gwalior. After marriage, as per address given they are residing in the State of U.P. Thus, threat, if any, is in the State of U.P. Cause of action based on threat, if any, is not based on any incident occurred within the territory of this Bench. Even otherwise, if main cause of action is within the territory of another Bench/Court, this Court may decline interference in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another) reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 , in which it is opined as under:- 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See (Bhagat Singh Bugga Vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney) reported in AIR 1941 Cal 670, (Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal) reported in (1945) 49 CWN 357, (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd.) reported in 1997 CWN 12, (S.S. Jain & Co. V. Union of India) reported in (1994) 1 CHN 445 and (New India Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of India) reported in AIR 1994 Del 126 . 5. Considering the aforesaid, I find no justification in entertaining this petition. Petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate Bench.