Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 136 (RAJ)

Pooja Devi v. Anant Sharma

2016-01-20

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. The applicant-wife has instituted the present transfer application before this Court, with a prayer for transfer of the divorce petition No. 83/2015 (Anant Sharma v. Pooja Sharma), instituted by the non-applicant-husband, before the Family Court, Bikaner, to Family Court, Sikar. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-wife, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the transfer application, submits that soon after the marriage between the parties, on account of serious matrimonial discord and dispute, the applicant-wife instituted the proceedings for offence under Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code by way of a complaint lodged before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, leading to registration of an FIR No. 57/2014. It is further asserted that the Governmental Enforcement Agency, after a thorough investigation into the crime, filed a charge-sheet against the non-applicant-husband and proceedings are pending at Sikar. 3. Another complaint petition No. 72/2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance is also pending adjudication before the Family Court, Sikar. An FIR No. 89/2015 has also been lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar, for offence under Section 417, 465, 469, 504, 506 and 120-B of IPC read with Section 66, 66(1), 67(A) and 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Thus, the non-applicant-husband would not suffer any inconvenience as compared to the applicant-wife, if the proceedings, instituted by the non-applicant-husband, are transferred from Family Court Bikaner to Family Court, Sikar. 4. Referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi; 2005 (12) SCC 237 and Nishapriya v. R.J. Sathish Kumar; II (2014) DMC 97 (SC), learned counsel would further submit in the matters of proceedings pending before the Courts in matrimonial disputes, it is the convenience of the wife which is to be considered and given preference as compared to that of the husband. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant wife is unemployed and has no source of independent income. She is residing with her parents at Sikar, and therefore, it will be convenient and in the interest of justice to transfer the proceedings from Family Court, Bikaner, to Family Court, Sikar. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.N. Sharma, appearing for non-applicant-husband, has resisted the prayer for transfer of the proceedings from Family Court, Bikaner to Family Court, Sikar. She is residing with her parents at Sikar, and therefore, it will be convenient and in the interest of justice to transfer the proceedings from Family Court, Bikaner, to Family Court, Sikar. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.N. Sharma, appearing for non-applicant-husband, has resisted the prayer for transfer of the proceedings from Family Court, Bikaner to Family Court, Sikar. It is contended that the non-applicant-husband has been implicated in the false and frivolous cases, as would be evident from the materials available on record. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at Bar. 8. The factual matrix as to the institution of the proceedings between the parties at Sikar and Bikaner, is not in dispute. The Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a catena of judgments has observed that in the matters of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is to be considered and preferred as compared to that of the husband. 9. Taking into consideration the totality of facts, circumstances and materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that in a larger interest, the proceedings instituted by the non-applicant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce, needs to be transferred from Family Court, Bikaner, to Family Court, Sikar. 10. Consequently, the transfer application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 11. It is ordered that the divorce petition No. 83/2015 (Anant Sharma v. Pooja Sharma), pending before the Family Court, Bikaner, be transferred to Family Court, Sikar. 12. Since both the parties are represented before this Court through their respective counsel, no further notice need be issued to them. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Sikar on 26th February, 2016.