Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 375 (MP)

SAIFALI SARAF v. AANTRIKSHA SARAF

2017-03-16

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. 1. With the consent of both the parties, heard finally. 2. This is a petition filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the applicant/wife for transfer of matrimonial matter bearing Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 from Bhopal to Balaghat which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal. 3. The facts, in narrow compass, are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 4/02/2014 as per the Hindu Customs. It is pleaded that the applicant had gone to her matrimonial house with the respondent/husband and lived there for sometime. The husband was not interested to live with the applicant and he was always passing sarcastic remark and was demanding more dowry and there were all kind of harassment to her. There are other allegations also made by the applicant. It is also stated that the applicant has made a complaint against the respondent and her mother-in-law before the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat. Copy of the said complaint has been filed as Annexure A/1. On the basis of such complaint, criminal case has also been registered against the respondent by Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat for commission of offence under section 498-A of IPC read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure A/2. The applicant has also filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C, 1973seeking maintenance from the respondent which is registered as M.Cr.C. No. 523/2014. It is further pleaded that a complaint under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent and her mother-in-law has also been filed which is pending before the trial Court at Balaghat. After receiving the summons by the trial Court, Balaghat the respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Bhopal in order to harass the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a lady and there is no male member in the family except her old father who cannot accompany her to attend the hearing of the case from Balaghat to Bhopal. The distance of Bhopal from Balaghat is more than 500 kms. It is also submitted that in the year 2015 when she had gone to attend the court proceedings there was an assault on her. The distance of Bhopal from Balaghat is more than 500 kms. It is also submitted that in the year 2015 when she had gone to attend the court proceedings there was an assault on her. Regarding that FIR was also lodged against her mother-in-law and others. Copy of the said FIR has been filed as Annexure A/7. In the background of these facts, the applicant submits that the matrimonial case be transferred from Family Court, Bhopal to Balaghat mainly on the ground that it is not convenient for her to travel for more than 500 kms to attend the hearing of the case. It is also submitted that there is apprehension of repeat of the assault on her at Bhopal. He relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the cases of Jyoti Bangde v. Sanjay Bangde, 2010 (4) MPLJ 391 , Rajkumar S/o Gopilal v. Saroj w/o Rajkumar, 2010 (2) MPLJ 256 , Saroj Devi Kushwaha (Smt.) v. Satendra Singh Kushwaha, 2010(3) MPHT 235 and also relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, AIR 2016 SC 718 to bolster his submission that the convenience of the wife is relevant consideration therefore, the application may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent denies the allegation and submits that the maintenance case has already been decided by the court at Balaghat. He further submits that he has not received any notice on the complaint made under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It is submitted that applicant is educated and she is in job therefore, there is no inconvenience to her in attending the case filed at Bhopal. He relies on the judgment passed by this Court in Deepa Kuttapan v. Anil Rajan, 2007 (5) MPHT 151 . He also referred the order passed by this Court in MCC No. 98/2011 which was passed relying the judgment in the case of Deepa Kuttapan (supra). 6. After hearing the rival submissions, from the present facts I find that the applicant/wife has made out a case for transfer of matrimonial matter from Bhopal to Balaghat. From the facts which are born out in the present case it has been established that the applicant is a lady of 31 years old and except her father, there is no male member in the family. From the facts which are born out in the present case it has been established that the applicant is a lady of 31 years old and except her father, there is no male member in the family. The distance of Bhopal from Balaghat is more than 500 kms. It is also taken note by this Court that in the other cases filed by the applicant, the respondent /husband is appearing in those cases at Balaghat. This Court has also taken note of the FIR as Annexure A/7 which supports the apprehension of the applicant of repeating the incident of assault in future. 7. Convenience of a party in a matrimonial dispute is one of the relevant factor for consideration of a transfer petition, especially, when the petition is filed by wife. This view of mine gets support from the judgments rendered in the cases of Jyoti Bangde v. Sanjay Bangde (supra), Rajkumar s/o Gopilal v. Saroj w/o Rajkumar, (supra), Rekha (Smt.) Richa Devani v. Kailash Devani, ILR (2010) MP 1680; and a recent order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Veena Wankhede v. Subhash Rao Wankhede, [M.C.C. No.2779/2016, dated 27-01-2017]; and also the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659 . Besides, the view expressed by this Court also gets fortified by a recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, AIR 2016 SC 718 wherein the Apex Court directed transfer of the matrimonial case from Rajkot to Jamnagar on the ground that the parties were participating other proceedings at Jamnagar. 8. The reliance placed by the counsel for the respondent in the case of Deepa Kuttapan (supra) would not much help to him in view of the facts of the present case and also the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in the cases of Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust (supra) and Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari (supra). 9. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The matrimonial case registered as Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal is hereby directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Balaghat. All records pertaining to Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 be transmitted to the Family Court, Balaghat. 9. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. The matrimonial case registered as Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal is hereby directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Balaghat. All records pertaining to Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 be transmitted to the Family Court, Balaghat. Now, the parties shall appear before the Family Court at Balaghat for further proceedings in Civil Case No. 888-A/2014 on 24/04/2017 and on such subsequent dates as may be directed by the said Court.