Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2126 (RAJ)

Avni v. Madan Gopal

2017-10-04

VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. This Transfer Application under section 24 CPC has been filed for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No. 112 of 2016 Madan Gopal v. Avnika, pending before the Family Court, Sriganganagar to any other court situated in Sriganganagar. 2. Briefly stated, marriage of the petitioner with Manoj Kumar was solemnized on 29.04.2007 and thereafter they started residing at Jaipur. Unfortunately, on 23.03.2008, husband of petitioner expired in an accident. At that time, she was pregnant and gave birth to a girl child on 04.07.2008, who was named Osika. After death of the husband, her respondent in-laws did not keep her well and therefore, she had to leave her in-laws' house and came down to Sri Ganganagar. 3. After passage of time, she got married to Manoj (performa respondent No. 3) whose earlier wife had expired. After marriage with Manoj, they were happily living together. The respondents, grandparents of her daughter, never tried to meet her or to give her any kind of maintenance. The respondents are in possession of movable & immovable property of her deceased husband. The respondents do not want to give anything to petitioner and her daughter and also entire amount of Life Insurance was taken by them. However, in order to defeat rights of the petitioner and her daughter, the respondents have filed an application for guardianship of person & property of Osika under the Guardians & Wards Act 1890. This application was filed before the Family Court Sri Ganganagar, although the respondents are residing and doing business at Jaipur. 4. The Family Court, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 14.10.2015 returned the plaint to the respondents, to be filed before competent court. Thereafter, an application was presented before the District Court, Sri Ganganagar. It was also contended that the petitioner observed that the court was proceeding with the matter hurriedly and not in a fair manner. By order dated 30.03.2017, an order was passed to keep the minor present on 01.04.2017. The petitioner complied with the order and kept her daughter present. On that day, her in-laws including respondents were present and they specifically stated that the Presiding Officer was from Bikaner and known to them and they would get order of guardianship soon. By order dated 30.03.2017, an order was passed to keep the minor present on 01.04.2017. The petitioner complied with the order and kept her daughter present. On that day, her in-laws including respondents were present and they specifically stated that the Presiding Officer was from Bikaner and known to them and they would get order of guardianship soon. From the proceedings that took place that day, the apprehension of the petitioner that the court was not proceeding in fair manner and was inclined towards respondents, came to be true. 5. The Presiding Officer called the minor in the Chamber and petitioner and her parents were asked to leave. Thereafter respondents and her daughter were called and minor started crying and she was asked to be taken home. However, signature of petitioner, her parents and the minor were taken on blank order-sheet and it was drawn stating incorrect facts and incidents which never happened and the minor was again asked to remain present on 17.04.2017 whereas in the chamber she was forced to take money and chocolates and hence she started crying. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for correction of the order-sheet. The petitioner now does not have faith in the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer is known to the respondents and he is proceeding in unfair manner and only with intention to give guardianship of the minor to respondents. 6. Notices were issued to the respondents. After service, no reply has been on behalf of respondents. 7. The counsel for the respondents while denying the allegations in the petition, submitted that there is nothing unusual in the order-sheet dated 01.04.2017. It was duty of the Presiding Officer to find out any amicable solution in such cases. For that purpose, efforts were made and the minor was called in the court and the Presiding Officer himself talked to him to find out what minor wants and how she reacts in the presence of grand-father and grand-mother and other relatives and also what happened in the court, was recorded in the order-sheet. It was also contended that same order dated 01.04.2017 was challenged by petitioner Mst Avni by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2017 and this fact was concealed by petitioner in his Transfer Petition. 8. It was also contended that same order dated 01.04.2017 was challenged by petitioner Mst Avni by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4968/2017 and this fact was concealed by petitioner in his Transfer Petition. 8. On perusal of the order-sheet dated 01.04.2017, there was nothing unusual wherefrom it can be inferred that the petitioner would not get justice. It was only efforts of the Presiding Officer to find out an amicable solution. In the opinion of this Court, there is no ground for transfer of the case. The Transfer Application is dismissed.