Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1872 (RAJ)

Rishita v. Rahul

2022-06-27

RAMESHWAR VYAS

body2022
JUDGMENT Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 13-1(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (afterwards referred to as "the Act of 1955"), by the respondent-husband against her bearing Divorce Petition No. 106/2021 titled as "Rahul v. Rishita" from the Family Court, Hanumangarh to Family Court, Sri Ganganagar. 2. As per averments made in application, the petitioner tied knot with the respondent at Hanumangarh as per Hindu customs on 17.04.2019. After marriage, behavior of the respondent and his family members towards petitioner was not good and polite and they harassed her for various reasons. The petitioner lodged F.I.R. No. 73/2021 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 313 & 323 of I.P.C. against the respondent and her in-laws. The petitioner has also filed application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 against the respondent before the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar bearing Civil Misc. Application No. 326/2021. The respondent has filed divorce petition under Section 13-1(ia) of the Act of 1955 against the petitioner before the Family Court, Hanumangarh. As per the petitioner, two cases between the parties are already pending at Sri Ganganagar, whereas, divorce petition filed by the respondent is pending at Hanumangarh. The petitioner being a lady is facing difficulties in attending the court proceedings at Hanumangarh. There is no male member in her family, who can accompany her while travelling from Sri Ganganagar to Hanumangarh. Therefore, she has prayed that the matter may be transferred from Hanumangarh to Sri Ganganagar. The application is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. The copies of the litigation pending between the parties have also been placed on record. 3. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent has put in appearance but did not choose to file reply to the transfer application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this application are valid and justified grounds for transfer of the case from Hanumangarh to Sri Ganganagar. There is no rebuttal of averments made in the application on the part of the respondent. The respondent did not choose to file reply to the transfer application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this application are valid and justified grounds for transfer of the case from Hanumangarh to Sri Ganganagar. There is no rebuttal of averments made in the application on the part of the respondent. The respondent did not choose to file reply to the transfer application. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that false allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against the respondent in the transfer application. 7. From the averments made in the application, it appears that the grounds raised by the petitioner are valid and justified grounds for transfer of the application. The petitioner has lodged the FIR for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 354, 313 & 323 of I.P.C. against the respondent and other in-laws at Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar. She has also filed application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 against the respondent before the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar The petitioner is a lady. The respondent is already defending himself in the proceedings pending against him at Sri Ganganagar. In such circumstances, it would be more inconvenient for the petitioner to defend the divorce petition pending against her at Hanumangarh. 8. Having regard to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the grounds raised by the petitioner and the fact that the same have not been rebutted by the respondent, this Court deems it fit to allow present transfer petition. 9. Resultantly, the present transfer petition is allowed. The Divorce Petition No. 106/2021 titled as "Rahul v. Rishita" pending in the Family Court, Hanumangarh is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar. 10. Let the parties shall appear before the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar on 28.07.2022 and thereafter, the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar would regulate the hearing. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar as well as Family Court, Hanumangarh for information and necessary compliance.