Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1967 (RAJ)

Priya Soni v. Pintu Soni

2017-09-04

VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. This Transfer Application under section 24 CPC has been filed for transfer of Civil Original Suit No. 99/2016, pending before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan to the court of Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali or in the Family Court, Pali. 2. Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.06.2009 in village Atabada, Tehsil Sojat of District Pali. No issue born out of the wedlock. The behaviour of the non-applicant from very beginning was cruel. The petitioner was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. An FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the non-applicant and his family members, which was registered as FIR No. 151/2012 at Police Station Sojat. However, after intervention of family members, the parties settled their disputes and started living together. Later on, the non-applicant again started behaving with cruelty and the petitioner was left with no option but to leave the matrimonial home otherwise they would have killed her. Again an FIR was lodged against the non-applicant and his family members, which was registered on 17.06.2013 at Police Station Sojat as FIR No. 172/2013 for offence under sections 498A, 406, 323/34 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter is pending trial before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, District Pali. 3. The non-applicant filed a Divorce Petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 99/2016. It was contended that the applicant is a lady and on very date of hearing it is not possible for her to attend the hearing in the divorce case filed by non-applicant at Jodhpur. It was also contended that the criminal case filed by the petitioner is pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat and the non-applicant is appearing there. 4. It was further stated that presently the petitioner is residing with her parents at Sojat. It was also contended that when applicant came to Jodhpur for attending hearing of divorce petition, then the non-applicant threatened her and asked to withdraw the criminal case otherwise she & her family members will be tortured. 5. Notices were sent to the respondent. The respondent refused to take the notices and the same was verified by two witnesses and the service is considered as completed. Thereafter, nobody appeared for the respondent. 5. Notices were sent to the respondent. The respondent refused to take the notices and the same was verified by two witnesses and the service is considered as completed. Thereafter, nobody appeared for the respondent. Even today, nobody appeared for the respondent nor any reply has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The applicant lodged an FIR against the non-applicant and his family members, firstly FIR No. 151/2012 in which after intervention of family members the parties settled their disputed and started living together, however, later on the non-applicant again started behaving with cruelty and a second FIR was lodged against him, which was registered as FIR No. 172/2013 under sections 498A, 406, 323/34 IPC. In that FIR, after investigation, challan was filed and Criminal Original Case No. 482/2013 is pending for trial before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The non-applicant has filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 99/2016. 7. The applicant lady is residing with her parents at Sojat. The non-applicant is appearing on every date of hearing in the criminal case pending before the ACJM, Sojat. The non-applicant has also threatened the applicant for withdrawal of criminal case. In view of this, it is very inconvenient for the applicant lady to travel all alone from Sojat to Jodhpur, which is near about 150 kms. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, inconvenient of the applicant lady is to be looked into in view of ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in 2016 (4) WLN 237 (SC) and it is a fit case to be transferred. 9. Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the Civil Original Suit No. 99/2016, filed by the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan is ordered to be transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali.