Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1548 (RAJ)

Seema Thakur v. Lokesh S/o Roopchand

2017-07-12

VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. - This Transfer Petition under section 24 CPC has been filed praying for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 476/2014 (Lokesh vs. Smt Seema) filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as also Civil Misc. Case No.14/2015 (Smt Seema vs. Lokesh) filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, both pending before Family Bikaner, to Family Court at Jaipur. 2. Briefly stated, marriage of the parties was solemnized on 19.07.2010. Out of their wedlock, one male child born on 06.09.2011. Soon after the marriage, the respondent started misbehaving, causing mental and physical cruelty, on account of demand of dowry. On 01.12.2012, when the petitioner was at Bikaner, the respondent husband and his family members beaten her, demanded dowry and thrown her out of the matrimonial home. After this incident, the petitioner phoned and called her father at Bikaner and narrated him entire incident. Father of the petitioner was not in a position to fulfill the illegal demand of dowry. Under these conditions, the petitioner took recourse to legal proceedings by submitting a complaint before competent trial court at Jaipur, which was sent for investigation under section 156 (3) to Mahila Police Station, Jaipur (South); on the basis of which an FIR No.33/2015 was registered against the respondent and his family members for offence under sections 498A, 406, 323, 341 & 120B IPC, which is pending investigation. 3. The respondent submitted a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bikaner. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bikaner against the respondent for grant of maintenance for herself and her minor son. The respondent husband and his family members are continuously giving threat to the petitioner and her family members on phone. In these circumstances, it would not be possible for her to travel from Jaipur to Bikaner on each & every date of hearing. 4. It was also contended that petitioner''s father is very old person and her mother is also a house-wife. It is not possible for her father as well as mother to accompany her to Bikaner on each and every date of hearing. There is no one else in the family of the petitioner to accompany her to Bikaner. 5. 4. It was also contended that petitioner''s father is very old person and her mother is also a house-wife. It is not possible for her father as well as mother to accompany her to Bikaner on each and every date of hearing. There is no one else in the family of the petitioner to accompany her to Bikaner. 5. Notices of this petition were served on the respondent and power was filed for the sole respondent. A reply to the Transfer Application has been filed and it was stated that during the period of marriage, the petitioner was living with her parents at Jaipur and despite her several times, she was not willing to come to Bikaner. The respondent also went to Jaipur with his maternal uncle on 21.11.2011 but father of petitioner declined to send her daughter with the respondent. 6. It was also stated that it is absolutely incorrect and false that the respondent or his family members have beaten the petitioner and demanded dowry. It was also contended that it has now become usual practice that when the girl herself does not want to live with husband, it is very easy to caste aspersion and allegations against the husband and his parents. Filing of FIR in the year 2015 clearly goes to show that if at all there was some truth in the allegations levelled by the petitioner, the FIR could have been filed in the year 2012 when the respondent alleged to have beaten her. 7. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner Smt Seema Thakur on 07.07.2017, whereby it was contended that during pendency of the Transfer Petition, the petitioner has filed an application under section 125 CrPC, 1973 (No.576/2015) for maintenance from the respondent before the Family Court, Jaipur Metropolitan. Another case No.417/2015 has also been filed by the petitioner before court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan against the respondent for offence under the Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending before that court. Similarly, a criminal case No.33/2015 for offence under sections 498A, 406 IPC is also pending against the respondent before court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan. 8. Similarly, a criminal case No.33/2015 for offence under sections 498A, 406 IPC is also pending against the respondent before court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan. 8. It is also stated that the petitioner is continuously receiving threats from respondent and it is causing great hardship to the petitioner to travel from Jaipur to Bikaner on every date of hearing before the Family Court, Bikaner, as her father is very old and it is not possible for her father & mother to accompany the petitioner on each & every date of hearing. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. On the face of facts mentioned in the Transfer Application and the facts mentioned in the Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is true that during pendency of this Transfer Petition, an application under section 125 CrPC, 1973 for maintenance, being Case No.576/2015) was filed, which is pending before the Family Court, Jaipur Metropolitan. Another case No.417/2015 has also been before the ACMM No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan against the respondent for offence under Domestic Violence Act. Similarly, criminal case No.33/2015 filed by the petitioner against respondent husband and his family for offence under sections 498A, 406, 323, 341 & 120B IPC is also pending before competent criminal court at Jaipur. 11. The petitioner is living with her parents. It is no doubt that age of father of the petitioner is near about 80 years. There is no evidence that the petitioner is having independent source of income and there is no one in her family to accompany the petitioner from Jaipur to Bikaner for attending proceedings of the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering hardship of the applicant lady, in view of ratio laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in 2016 (4) WLN 237 (SC), it is a fit case to order transfer of the Divorce Petition filed by the respondent and the application under section 24 filed by the respondent, from Family Court, Bikaner to Jaipur. 13. Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the Divorce Petition No.476/2014 (Lokesh vs. Smt Seema) as well as Civil Misc. Case No.14/2015 (Smt Seema vs. Lokesh), pending before the Family Court, Bikaner are ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Jaipur.