Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 989 (RAJ)

Leena v. Sunil Dutt

2017-04-17

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this transfer petition seeking transfer of matrimonial case pending before Family Court Judge, Ajmer to the Court of Additional District Judge, Barmer. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that wife has filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Barmer. 3. It is contended that the divorce petition filed by the respondent husband be transferred to Barmer. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2017 DNJ (SC) "Krishna Veni Nogom v. Harish Nogom" and 2016 (4) WLN 237 (SC) "Vaishali Shridhan Jogtop v. Shridhan Vishwanath Jogtop". 5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the transfer application. His contention is that the application for divorce was filed by the respondent husband on 26.05.2016 and it is only thereafter that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 and application under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act was filed by the applicant wife. It is also contended that the applicant is looking after his son who is ten years of age and who is suffering from Bronchial Asthama. It is also contended that the mother of respondent is also a heart patient and therefore it is not possible for the respondent to attain the proceedings at Barmer. 6. Counsel for the respondent has place reliance on AIR 2016 SC 4833 "Amandeep Goyal v. Yogesh Rani". 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. The marriage of the parties took place in the years 2006 and son Saransh was born out of the wedlock 22.10.1017. Petitioner is living separately from her husband since 2014. Respondent husband filed an application on 26-05.2016 which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Barmer. From the documents produced by the respondent, it is appearing that Saransh is suffering from Bronchial Asthama and mother of the respondent is also a heart patient who had a minor heart attack in the year 2013. 9. The facts of the present case are almost akin to the case before the Supreme Court "Amandeep Goyal v. Yogesh Rani" (supra). 10. 9. The facts of the present case are almost akin to the case before the Supreme Court "Amandeep Goyal v. Yogesh Rani" (supra). 10. The child who is with the respondent is suffering from Bronchial Asthma, the mother of the respondent is also a heart patient, Considering the same, the petition which was filed prior to the filing of the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act deserves to be rejected. 11. Consequently, the transfer petition is dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of.