Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 986 (RAJ)

Neha v. Sorabh Goyal

2018-04-11

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
ORDER : 1. The present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner, seeking transfer of Case No. 578/2016 titled as Sorabh Goyal vs. Smt. Neha from Family Court No. 1, Jodhpur to Family Court, Ajmer. 2. Shorn of unnecessary and unwarranted details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the present transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the petitioner married the respondent on 17.02.2016 and started living with him at Jodhpur. During the course of stay, her husband and family members ill-treated her for which, she left her in-laws’ house and went to Ajmer for living with her parents. 3. The respondent has filed the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30.08.2016, notice whereof had been received by the petitioner on 05.11.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner has filed three cases against the respondent-husband in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ajmer, being cases under Section 498-A of IPC, Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his application for transfer, contended that the respondent-husband is otherwise contesting these three cases at Ajmer and he has been regularly participating in these proceedings and therefore, it would be appropriate that the case of dissolution of marriage be transferred to Family Court, Ajmer. 6. Apart from the above, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's father, suffering from heart ailment had undergone angioplasty and her only brother has passed away in February, 2017, as such, it is a daunting task for her to undertake journey from Ajmer to Jodhpur, which is about 225 k.m. 7. Mr. Rajpurohit, per contra submitted that the respondent has also filed two cases against the petitioner in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jodhpur, which are being duly participated by the petitioner. He added that the respondent-husband is serving as Pharmacist in Government Hospital, Jodhpur. If the matter is transferred, he would have to undertake journey to Ajmer, which would not only require a day's leave but would also effect public health, on account of his absence. 8. He added that the respondent-husband is serving as Pharmacist in Government Hospital, Jodhpur. If the matter is transferred, he would have to undertake journey to Ajmer, which would not only require a day's leave but would also effect public health, on account of his absence. 8. Having considered the fact situation obtaining in the present case and having regard to the facts and circumstances and arguments advanced by rival counsels, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent-husband would suffer more inconvenience and hardship, if the matter at hand is transferred from Jodhpur to Ajmer. As against this, if the matter remains pending in Jodhpur, the petitioner, who is a graduate and not otherwise engaged in any occupation can conveniently come to Jodhpur, which is well connected from Ajmer. Taking up a journey by a lady in present era from Ajmer to Jodhpur cannot be said to troublesome, particularly when Ajmer is having good connection of road and rail to Jodhpur. 9. My aforesaid views are fortified by the law laid down by this Court in case of Smt. Vinita vs. Himanshu, AIR 2017 Raj. 102 , relevant part whereof is being reproduced hereunder:- “It is, therefore, felt imperative to examine and explore the necessary principles governing transfer applications, filed by families, entangled in forensic fights, while invoking powers conferred upon this Court by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. It is true that the discretionary power, more particularly, the jurisdiction in relation to transfer of cases, can not be imprisoned or bound within a straight jacket or castiron formula, uniformly applicable to all situations, yet the courts are required to be mindful of the fact that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Generally speaking, they are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience arising out of a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence or the points involved in the case; issues raised by the parties and reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might not get justice in the court, where the proceedings are pending, or reasonable apprehension of failure of justice on the basis of a proven bias. These few factors are some of the aspects, germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings. 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.” 10. This Court does not find any reason or justification for acceding to the request of transfer made by petitioner. 11. However, to maintain the balance of equity and mitigate against the hardship, it is deemed expedient and hence ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner for undertaking the journey from Ajmer to Jodhpur, on each day when petitioner presents herself at Jodhpur for participating in the proceedings. 12. The Family Court, Jodhpur would ensure that the petitioner-Smt. Neha is paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,000/- on each date of hearing, when she appears. 13. The transfer petition is however, rejected.