Allahabad High Court
Anita Maurya vs Ramesh Kumar Maurya on 8 April, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 327 of 2019
Applicant :- Anita Maurya
Opposite Party :- Ramesh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Applicant :- Jeevanjee Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Case called out in revise. Learned counsel for the applicant is present whereas Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party is not present.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier vide order dated 11.11.2021, matter was referred to Mediation Centre. Mediation was completed on 31.3.2022 without any agreement. He further submitted that vide order dated 14.9.2021, time was granted to other side to file counter affidavit, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is wife of opposite party and suffering from mental disease Schizophrenia. He next submitted that she is residing at Bhadohi and opposite party has filed Case No. 91 of 2018 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra, which is around 161 kilometers away from District Bhadohi, therefore, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings at District Sonbhadra on each date fixed and defend effectively. He further submitted that another proceeding i.e. Case No. 178 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending in District Bhadohi. He next submitted that during pendency of the transfer application, applicant has instituted two other cases at Bhadohi. He lastly submitted that Apex Court as well as many other Courts have taken constant view that in such cases convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court and this Court in the cases of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay reported in 2001 LawSuit(SC) 363, Sweety Vs. Anuj Garg passed in T.A. No. 228 of 2014 decided on 11 August, 2015 and D. Kokila Vs. R. Dillibabu passed in Transfer C.M.P. No. 201 of 2016 decided on 4 October, 2016, Satyam Goyal vs. Principal Judge, Family Court Gonda and others passed in Application Nos. 93 & 119 of 2017 decided on 3.8.2018, Smt. Dipti Saxena Vs. Ashish Srivastava and another passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 567 of 2019 decided on 14.12.2020 and Swapnal Mishra vs. Saurabh Mishra passed in Transfer Application (Civil) Nos. 152 of 2019 & 111 of 2021 decided on 4.2.2022 respectively. Lastly, he submitted that recently this Court in the matter of Smt. Shakshi Agarwal vs. Sri Ashutosh Agarwal allowed the transfer Application filed by wife vide detailed judgment and order dated 4.2.2022 considering the different pronouncements made by the Apex Court as well as High Courts.
I have considered submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant and perused the records as well as judgments relied upon by him. Facts of the case are unrebutted and controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by counsel for applicant.
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Case No. 91 of 2018 is withdrawn from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra. Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra is directed to transmit the record of Case No. 91 of 2018 (Ramesh Kumar Maurya Vs. Anita Maurya) to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi at Gyanpur within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, endeavour shall be made to decide the aforesaid case maximum within a period of six months as provided in Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bhadohi at Gyanpur or other Additional Judge as per the Rules of the Family Court.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022
Arvind
