Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1448 (RAJ)

Vibha Jain v. Naresh Kumar Somiya

2018-07-09

ARUN BHANSALI

body2018
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This petition under Section 24 C.P.C. has been Filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of proceedings pending before the Family Court, Udaipur to Family Court, Doongarpur. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.1.2010 and two children, Aradhya and Tanksh were born on 19.9.2011 and 28.11.2016, respectively. Proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have been filed by the respondent-husband at Family Court, Udapur; summons whereof for appearance on 31.10.2017 were received by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Doongarpur against the respondent and his relatives pertaining to domestic violence and demand of dowry on 14.9.2017. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no helping hand, a minor daughter to look after and a minor son in her lap and, therefore, it is very difficult, rather impossible for her to appear before the Family Court, Udaipur. It is also submitted that investigation pertaining to the complaint made by the petitioner is already pending at Doongarpur. The petitioner has no independent source of maintenance for herself and her two minor children, the distance between the place of her residence and Udaipur is 125 km. and no direct bus/train service is available. Further, no close relative is in a position to travel with the petitioner as her father is very old. It is submitted that huge inconvenience would be caused to the petitioner in attending the proceedings at Udaipur, whereas, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent in any manner if he is to attend the hearing at Doongarpur and, therefore, proceedings be transferred from Udaipur to Doongarpur. 4. Reliance was placed on Smt. Vinita v. Himanshu, 2018(2) WLC (Raj.) 146 and Smt. Lalita v. Ramuram, S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 130/201(sic) decided on 21.10.2017. 5. A reply has been filed by the respondent-husband vehemently opposing the submissions made in the application. It is inter alia submitted that the proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner by filing complaint with the police as a counter blast to the complaint made by the respondent-husband against the petitioner and her family members at Police Station Bichhiwada, as the respondent was roughed up by them, in which case, challan has been filed. It is inter alia submitted that the proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner by filing complaint with the police as a counter blast to the complaint made by the respondent-husband against the petitioner and her family members at Police Station Bichhiwada, as the respondent was roughed up by them, in which case, challan has been filed. It is submitted that in case the proceedings are transferred to Doongarpur, there is danger of breach of peach/to the respondent's life. 6. Further submissions have been made that inconvenience to the petitioner cannot be a reason for transfer of proceedings and, therefore, the petition be dismissed. 7. Reliance has been placed on Dimple Soni v. Praveen Kumar, 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 84 , Anindita Das v. Shrijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 and Jayant Kumar Gehlot v. Smt. Sunita Gehlot, S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Petition No. 52/2015 decided on 1.2.2016 besides placing reliance on the judgment in Smt. Neha v. Sorabh Goyal, 2018 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 678. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. While the petitioner has indicated inconvenience likely to be faced by her in attending the proceedings at Family Court, Udaipur on account of distance from the place of her residence to Udaipur and the fact that she is required to look after her two minor children, wherein, one child is now about 2 years old only and was about one year old when the petition was filed before this Court, the respondent has contested the proceedings mainly on the ground that he was manhandled earlier by the relatives of the petitioner and that he perceives threat to his life in case the matter is transferred to Doongarpur. 10. The law on the aspect is clear, wherein, after considering the judgment in the case of Anindita Das (supra), this Court in the case of Smt. Vinita (supra) laid down as under: "It may be true that distance alone may not be decisive factor but it has its own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition. Suffice it to say, that in the present case, it is not the distance alone for which this Court finds that it would be convenient for the petitioner-wife to defend the case in question at Bhilwara instead of Chittorgarh. There are other surrounding circumstances stated above, for which this Court feels it appropriate to transfer the case to the Court at Bhilwara." 11. The said judgment has been followed in the case of Smt. Neha (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 12. In the case of Smt. Vinita (supra) it has been laid down that the Court is required to focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience of the parties and that convenience itself is a vital factor to be reckoned while deciding the transfer petition. 13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is required to look after her two minor children, there is none in the family to accompany her for attending hearing at Udaipur, wherein, she is necessarily required to carry along her two years old child and that the distance between the place of her residence and Udaipur is about 125 km. Though, the above aspect apparently pertains to inconvenience of the petitioner, the nature of inconveniences indicated are such that same essentially would result in hampering convenient proceeding of the matter at Family Court, Udaipur, as on account of above circumstances, the petitioner would be prevented from conveniently appearing before the Court at Udaipur. 14. So far as perception of threat by the respondent in attending the Court at Doongarpur is concerned, the very fact that police has already taken appropriate proceedings qua the complaint filed by the respondent, the same is deterrent enough for the family members of the petitioner to indulge in any kind of activity as indicated by the respondent and if they indulge in such activity, the law will take its own course and the threat perception apparently by itself cannot affect the transfer petition. 15. In view of the above discussion, the transfer petition is allowed and it is directed that Case Misc. Application No. 384/2017 pending before the Family Court, Udaipur be transferred to Family Court, Doongarpur. 15. In view of the above discussion, the transfer petition is allowed and it is directed that Case Misc. Application No. 384/2017 pending before the Family Court, Udaipur be transferred to Family Court, Doongarpur. The parties shall appear before the Court at Doongarpur on 6.8.2018. The Family Court, Udaipur is directed to remit the record of the aforesaid case to Family Court, Doongarpur immediately.