Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2508 (RAJ)

Sunita v. Pradeep Bishnoi

2017-11-15

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. 240/2016 (Pradeep v. Smt Sunita) filed by respondent under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur. 2. Briefly stated, there is no legal and valid marriage between the parties. Only an engagement was done between parties at the time when they were minor. It was further averred that due to certain reasons, when this engagement could not materialize into legal marriage then the respondent abducted & kidnapped the petitioner from Ajmer. In such circumstances, father of the petitioner Kishna Ram filed an FIR No. 83/2015. Subsequently, in that case, statement of petitioner was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Later on, a compromise took place between the parties whereby it was decided that the engagement, which was done at the time when both the parties were minor, comes to end and both the parties are having liberty to solemnize marriage as per their will and wishes. Due to this settlement, Final Report was filed in the aforesaid FIR No. 83/2015. 3. The respondent with intention to harass the petitioner has filed application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, before the Family Court No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan. There is no legal and valid marriage between the parties but the respondent has filed aforesaid petition at Jodhpur only with intention to harass the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner is residing at Ajmer and she is studying in R.R. College of Nursing, Ajmer. The respondent has earlier also kidnapped & abducted the petitioner forcibly, misbehaved with her, took photos and put illegal pressure upon petitioner for solemnizing legal marriage and also gave threatening to her father and other family members. Her life is stake if she comes to attend proceedings pending at Jodhpur. 4. Notices were issued to the respondent. After putting appearance, the respondent sought time on 27.02.2017 to file reply but despite repeated adjournments, no reply has been filed till today nor any one has appeared for the respondent today. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has submitted that there was no legal marriage between the parties. Only the engagement was performed long back when both the parties were minor. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has submitted that there was no legal marriage between the parties. Only the engagement was performed long back when both the parties were minor. The respondent had abducted & kidnapped the petitioner from Ajmer to pressure for legal marriage and in such circumstances, an FIR was filed by father of the petitioner, which is placed on record as Annx.1. In that case, statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 It was further submitted that under social pressure, a compromise was recorded between the parties and Final Report was filed in aforesaid FIR. On perusal of Annxs.1, 2 and 3, statement of petitioner finds support from contents of those documents. 7. The respondent has filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, just to harass her when there is no legal marriage between the parties. Under these circumstances, according to the petitioner she has apprehension that if she comes to Jodhpur for attending the proceedings, her life would be at danger and she may be abducted or kidnapped for creating pressure for legal marriage with the respondent. 8. In the facts and circumstances, convenience and security of the petitioner is very much relevant and the same has to be considered by this Court 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 Misc. Case No. 240/2016 (Pradeep v. Smt Sunita), filed by the respondent under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Ajmer.