Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 511 (ALL)

Malti v. Sanjay @ Guddu

2022-04-06

JASPREET SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri D.K.Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 3. The record indicates that notice was issued to the respondent, which as per office report dated 04-02-2022 was found sufficient. The court in its order dated 07-03-2022 had noticed the aforesaid and has fixed the date 06-04-2022 with the liberty that it shall open for the respondent to file his objections. However, neither any Vakalatnama nor the objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent. In this view of the matter, the court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. By means of instant petition filed under section 24 C.P.C.,the petitioner seeks transfer Misc. Civil Case No. 15 of 2021(Sanjay Kumar Rathaur Vs Malti) under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, district-Sitapur to the appropriate court in district-Hardoi. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the parties were married on 08-05-2009 and from their wedlock, a male child was born. However, on account of matrimonial discord, the petitioner alongwith her minor son started living separately with her parents in district-Hardoi. Initially the respondent had instituted a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, the petitioner being under a threat at the behest of the respondent did not contest the aforesaid proceedings. 6. It is also urged that the petitioner had instituted a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the appropriate court in district-Hardoi and an F.I.R. was also lodged against the respondent relating to demand of dowry and the said matter is still pending before the appropriate court. 7. It has further been urged that on the petition preferred under section 125 Cr.P.C, by means of order dated 02-06-2015, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardoi, rejected the claim in so far as the petitioner is concerned, but allowed the same in part in so far as the minor child is concerned and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-P.M. for the upbringing of the minor child. 8. 2,000/-P.M. for the upbringing of the minor child. 8. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid backdrop where the petitioner is being threatened by the respondent for which several complaints have also been made and copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure No. 7 to the paper book and to harass the petitioner the respondent had instituted a petition under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking custody of the minor child registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 15 of 2021. In the aforesaid backdrop, where on one hand, the petitioner is under threat to contest the proceedings in district-Sitapur coupled with the fact that she has a minor child to look after and is also not having adequate means. Not to mention that despite the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the minor child, yet, the amount is not regularly paid and the petitioner is compelled to move an application seeking enforcement of the order in terms of section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. and the respondent is leaving no stone unturned to cause harassment to the petitioner and the petition filed under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act is nothing, but, another attempt to cause harassment to the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the said case be transferred from district-Sitapur to district-Hardoi. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also from the perusal of material on record, this court is of the opinion that in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in 2002 (10 SCC 480, in the case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686 and in the case of Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589, where it has been held in so far as the transfer petitions relating to matrimonial matters are concerned, the preference of the lady should be given precedence. In light thereof as well as in view of the circumstances as noticed above, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by transferring the Misc. In light thereof as well as in view of the circumstances as noticed above, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by transferring the Misc. Civil Case No. 15 of 2021 (Sanjay Kumar Rathaur Vs Malti) under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, district-Sitapur to be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, district-Hardoi. 10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur shall forthwith transmit the record of Case No. 15 of 2021 to the transferee court in district-Hardoi, who shall upon receipt of the record as well as the order passed by this Court shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned but without granting any unnecessary adjournment make an endeavour to decide the proceedings most expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months, from the date a certified copy of this order and record of the case is placed before the transferee court. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.