Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2137 (RAJ)

Jyoti Sarangdawot v. Kamlendra Singh

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 Case No. 44/2017 (Kamlendra Singh vs. Smt Jyoti Sarangdawot), filed by the respondent under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before District Judge, Jalore to the court of Family Judge, Udaipur. 2. Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007. During subsistence of the marriage, a son was born to them on 29.09.2008. There arose some dispute between husband and wife and relation between both deteriorated day-byday. The respondent and his family members harassed her for demand of more dowry and committed cruelty upon her. A criminal case was lodged against the respondent alleging demand of dowry and cruelty, at the Women Police Station, Udaipur City, wherein after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent-husband. The petitioner has also filed proceedings for maintenance under section 125 CrPC, 1973 and a case under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before competent court at Udaipur. 3. It was contended that the respondent started demanded dowry and committed cruelty upon the petitioner and after some time, turned out the petitioner from her matrimonial home, by keeping her ornaments and dowry articles. The respondent has filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before District Judge, Jalore against the petitioner in order to save his skin in the aforesaid criminal case lodged by petitioner against him. It was also contended that the relation between the parties were not cordial and respondent threatened the petitioner that if she will appear in the court at Jalore then she will have to face severe consequences. It was also contended that it is not possible for a lady to travel all alone a distance of more than 150-200 kms from Udaipur to Jalore, particularly under the circumstances that she has received threats from the respondent. 4. Notices were issued to the respondent and after service, reply to the transfer application has been filed. 5. In the reply, it was contended that the petitioner made false statement in para 4 regarding threatening by the answering respondent. Said statement is incorrect, without any basis or proof and with the intention to mislead the Hon''ble Court to create a case in her favour. 5. In the reply, it was contended that the petitioner made false statement in para 4 regarding threatening by the answering respondent. Said statement is incorrect, without any basis or proof and with the intention to mislead the Hon''ble Court to create a case in her favour. It is settled law that mere vague statement without any factual basis can not be considered a valid reason for transfer of the case. It was further stated that as regard contention that the petitioner is having no means to come to Jalore, the petitioner is already getting sufficient amount of Rs. 6500/- under orders of the court for her maintenance from the respondent. Further, Jalore is not 200 kms away but it is, in fact, less than 150 kms from Udaipur. So also, the respondent is ready and willing to pay the expenses incurred in attending the case at Jalore. The petitioner wants to delay the divorce petition filed by the answering respondent. The petitioner has no valid reason for transfer of the Divorce Petition filed by the answering respondent. 6. It was also contended in the reply that merely on ground of financial hardship, case filed before competent court can not be transferred. It was also contended that pendency of proceedings under section 125 CrPC, 1973 and case filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act have no effect over the divorce case. It was also contended that the petitioner is an educated lady, having sufficient means and thus, it can not be assumed that she can not attend the court at Jalore which is less than 150 kms away. The respondent is ready to provide expenses incurred in attending the court at Jalore. It was further argued that the answering respondent and petitioner lived together as husband and wife for years at Jalore, all incidents of their married life happened in Jalore, the incidences averred in the divorce petition are of Jalore and thus, witnesses sought to be produced in the divorce case by the answering respondent and also by petitioner will be from Jalore. As such, if divorce petition is transferred to Udaipur, entire case of the answering respondent would be frustrated as it would be inconvenient for the answering respondent to produce the witnesses at Udaipur. 7. Heard the rival contentions of the parties. 8. As such, if divorce petition is transferred to Udaipur, entire case of the answering respondent would be frustrated as it would be inconvenient for the answering respondent to produce the witnesses at Udaipur. 7. Heard the rival contentions of the parties. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has sought transfer of Divorce Petition filed by the respondent before District Judge Jalore to the Family Court at Udaipur, on the grounds of pendency of one criminal case under sections 498A, 406 IPC at Udaipur and also proceedings under section 125 CrPC, 1973 and a case under Domestic Violence Act pending before competent court at Udaipur. Other grounds taken by the petitioner was that she has received threat from the respondent to face severe consequences if she appears before the court at Jalore but no such incidence was referred by the petitioner-wife where any threat was given by the husband to deter her from appearing in the court at Jalore and only general allegation was levelled. 9. The respondent while denying the averments made by the petitioner-wife in the transfer petiton, contended that the petitioner is receiving Rs. 6500/- per month as maintenance in proceedings under section 125 CrPC, 1973 and he is also ready to compensate the petitioner-wife to bear the travel expenses for herself and an escort. In such circumstances, the divorce petition should not be transferred from Jalore to Udaipur. 10. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on case reported in 2005 (11) SCC 446 {Gargi Konar vs. Jagjeet Singh}, in which case it was held that transfer can not be allowed on such grounds and the respondent can be directed to pay for her and her companions, to & fro and stay expenses on every occasion on which she is required to travel for contesting the proceedings. He also placed reliance on (1996) 11 SCC 96 : Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar (Smt) vs. Dr Deviprakash Thakar, holding that having regard to relevant factors and undertaking of husband to bear travel expenses of wife and an escort, transfer disallowed. He further placed reliance on 1990 0 Supreme (P&H) 205: Veena Rani vs. Parvinder Kumar, wherein the transfer petition was disallowed by observing that no incidence was referred by the wife where any threat was given by the husband to deter her from appearing at the court. 11. He further placed reliance on 1990 0 Supreme (P&H) 205: Veena Rani vs. Parvinder Kumar, wherein the transfer petition was disallowed by observing that no incidence was referred by the wife where any threat was given by the husband to deter her from appearing at the court. 11. In the present case also, no such incidence was referred about threatening against attending divorce case at Jalore. Both the parties lived after marriage at Jalore and so far evidence in the divorce case is concerned, obviously witnesses would be from Jalore. Otherwise she herself has to appear, close relation would appear promptly, by which case can be adjudicated expeditiously. Moreover, the respondent is ready & willing to bear the travel & stay expenses for the petitioner and an escort. 12. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds no substance and merit in the present transfer application and the same is dismissed.