Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 346 (RAJ)

Shikha Mittal v. Trilok Chand Gupta

2016-03-01

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
ORDER : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. Applicant-wife Shikha Mittal, has instituted the present transfer application with the prayer for transfer of the proceedings instituted by the non-applicant-husband before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (Case No. 1055/2014) (Trilok Chand Gupta Vs. Shikha Mittal); to Family Court, Bikaner. 2. In order to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties, the matter was placed before the Mediation Center on 20.2.2016. However, the Mediator has submitted a failure report. 3. Briefly, the skeletal material facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 19.5.2014 at Bikaner. On account of serious matrimonial discord and dispute between the parties, allegedly for want of dowry; impelled the applicant wife to lodge an FIR on 28.2.2015 for offence under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC leading to registration of crime No. 3/2015 at Police Station (Women), Bikaner. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have also been instituted. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife Mr. Intjar Ali, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the transfer application asserted that the applicant-wife was subjected to cruelty and as a consequence, she had to institute an FIR for offence aforesaid. It is further contended that on a thorough investigation into the allegations of demand of dowry along with offence under Section 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC; a charge-sheet has been filed by the Governmental Enforcement Agency. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that proceedings instituted by the non-applicant-husband under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, District Jaipur, is yet another attempt by the non-applicant-husband to further harass and cause inconvenience to the applicant wife for the distance is more than 300 Kms between Bikaner and Jaipur. 6. While asserting the claim for transfer of the proceedings, the learned counsel has referred to the opinion of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ekta Vs. Satish; 2014 LS(Raj) 839 decided on 23.1.2014; wherein in somewhat similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench taking note of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajni Kumar Vs. Raghvinder Sahay @ Lal Babu, 2009 1 WLC (SC) CVL 530; and Samita Bhattacharjee Vs. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee, 2008 1 WLC (SC) 637; allowed the transfer application. Satish; 2014 LS(Raj) 839 decided on 23.1.2014; wherein in somewhat similar circumstances, the co-ordinate Bench taking note of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajni Kumar Vs. Raghvinder Sahay @ Lal Babu, 2009 1 WLC (SC) CVL 530; and Samita Bhattacharjee Vs. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee, 2008 1 WLC (SC) 637; allowed the transfer application. In addition, learned counsel has also referred to pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani Vs. Jitesh Kishore Tolani, 2010 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 705. 7. Per contra; Dr. Bharti Sharma, appearing for non-applicant husband while resisting the transfer of the matter from Family Court, Jaipur to Bikaner, contended that the non-applicant/husband is being harassed and subjected to cruelty at the hands of applicant-wife as would be evident from the sequence of events. She has also expressed apprehension that the applicant-wife would misuse the concession for it is very likely that she should take unnecessary adjournments in order to seek more and more dates with an object to cause inconvenience to the non-applicant/husband so as to pressurize him to yield to her illegitimate demands for which a proposal was made during the course of mediation proceedings. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance carefully perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ekta (supra). 9. It is not in dispute that there are two proceedings already instituted by the applicant-wife and are pending before the jurisdictional Court in Bikaner. In the matters of matrimonial proceedings, the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been to consider and prefer convenience of the wife as compared to that of the husband as has been observed in the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 41. Further, the distance between the two places is another factor which needs to be taken note of in case of the applicant. 10. Keeping in view the object underlying the establishment of Family Courts under the Family Court Act, 1984, which is a special legislation for the purpose of resolution of the matrimonial disputes in accordance with the procedure provided therein. 10. Keeping in view the object underlying the establishment of Family Courts under the Family Court Act, 1984, which is a special legislation for the purpose of resolution of the matrimonial disputes in accordance with the procedure provided therein. The approach adopted for the purpose of resolution of the matrimonial disputes is radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. 11. For the reasons and discussion hereinabove and keeping in view the fact that non-applicant/husband has instituted the proceedings for dissolution of marriage under Section 12 of the Act of 1955, before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur; in the singular facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, I am inclined to grant application of the applicant wife. 12. Consequently, the application is hereby allowed. The proceedings pending before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, registered as Case No. 1055/2014 (Trilok Chand Gupta Vs. Shikha Mittal); are ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bikaner. 13. Since both the parties are represented through their counsel, no further notice be issued to them. 14. The parties would appear before the Family Court, Bikaner, on 29th March, 2016. 15. The Family Court, Bikaner is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously and not to grant unnecessary adjournments.