Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 632 (RAJ)

Pushpa Verma v. Hukam Chand Verma

2020-09-07

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2020
JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - In SB Civil Misc. Application No.1/2019:- This application has been filed by the applicant to confine his relief in the transfer application to the transfer of the application No.116/2019 under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short "the Act of 1890") pending with the learned Family Court No.3, Jaipur to the learned Family Court, Ajmer. 2. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection if the application is allowed. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 4. With the consent of the parties, the transfer application is being heard for admission and final disposal at this stage. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a destitute lady with no source of income. He submits that she had to file an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 seeking custody of her minor daughter Kumari Monika at Jaipur in the wake of Section 9 of the Act of 1890. He submits that pendency of the application at Jaipur is causing great hardship to her as she is residing at Ajmer with her four years old daughter as well as her aged and ailing parents with none else in the family to support them. He submits that the non-applicant is already attending trial at Ajmer in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act of 2005") pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Ajmer as well as proceedings under Section 125 CrPC pending with the learned Family Court, Ajmer and hence, would suffer no hardship if the pending case under the Act of 1890 is transferred to the learned Family Court, Ajmer from the learned Family Court No.3, Jaipur. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant opposing the prayer submitted that the matter cannot be transferred only on account of convenience of the applicant; but, could not dispute that nonapplicant is already attending two proceedings at Ajmer initiated by the applicant. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the non-applicant is attending trial under the Act of 2005 as well as proceedings under Section 125 CrPC at Ajmer. In these circumstances, he is not likely to suffer any hardship in case of transfer of the case to Ajmer. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the non-applicant is attending trial under the Act of 2005 as well as proceedings under Section 125 CrPC at Ajmer. In these circumstances, he is not likely to suffer any hardship in case of transfer of the case to Ajmer. It also borns out from the record that the applicant is residing at Ajmer with her minor daughter aged about four years, aged and ailing parents with no other member in the family to support them. 9. In these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the transfer application which is accordingly allowed. The case No.116/2019 pending with the learned Family Court No.3, Jaipur under Section 25 of Act of 1890 is transferred to the learned Family Court, Ajmer.