Allahabad High Court
Varalika Singh vs Nipun Agarwal on 23 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39437
Court No. - 17
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 21 of 2023
Applicant :- Varalika Singh
Opposite Party :- Nipun Agarwal
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Amarjeet Singh Rakhra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Kumar Tripathi,Aditya Vikram Singh
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sudeep Seth learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party.
2. Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking transfer of Case No. 4061 of 2022 instituted by the opposite party under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to District Prayagraj.
3. It has been submitted that applicant is residing at Prayagraj with her parents after relations have soured between the two and that she is unemployed and financially dependent upon her parents. It is also submitted that applicant has a child of one and half years and due to aforesaid factors, she is facing difficulty in attending to the case instituted at Lucknow.
4. In response thereto, learned counsel for opposite party has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant with the submission that as per the Aadhar Card as well as Insurance Policy documents of applicant, she has been shown to be ordinarily resident of District Lucknow where she is still residing and therefore there is no occasion for transfer of case to Prayagraj. It is further submitted that even otherwise in terms of rules framed by this Court, video conferencing facilities are now available all over the State and applicant can very well avail herself of such facilities without requiring physical presence. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi versus State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 530 as also in view of order in the case of Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan versus Navin Chauhan reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 38.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that applicant has stated that she is residing with her parents at District Prayagraj. The documents placed on record with the counter affidavit such as the Aadhar Card and Insurance Policies are clearly prior to the initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Although, learned counsel for opposite party has denied the financial dependency of applicant upon her parents, no document has been brought on record to indicate her employment.
6. So far as judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi (supra) is concerned, the factual aspects pertained to transfer of a case on the ground of apprehension of danger of life of applicant as also on the ground of financial crisis. The judgment has adverted to steps taken as well as framing of the rules for video conferencing for courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 which indicates the procedure required to be followed for appearance through video conferencing in courts proceedings.
7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment thus make it quite evident that video conferencing facilities are now available in the State of Uttar Pradesh for judicial proceedings including those of Family Courts. However, the factual aspects of the aforesaid case would not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances inasmuch as there is no apprehension of danger of life of applicant who is seeking transfer of the case only on account of difficulty of distance and being a nursing mother of a minor child of one and half years of age.
8. It is also relevant to indicate that although the Rules of 2020 have been notified but as of now have limited applicability due to various practical difficulties which may be faced for appearance of parties through video conferencing only. The facilities for video conferencing are dependent on adequate internet facilities available to the litigant at their end. It may not be enough that such adequate facilities are available in the Court rooms but without such concomitant facilities including high bandwidth being available to the litigant, practical implementation of the Rules of 2020 would remain stymied.
9. Learned counsel for opposite party has adverted to judgment in the case ofAnjali Brahmawar Chauhan (supra). However, a perusal of the same clearly indicates that it is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since it was rendered in review proceedings at the time when COVID pandemic was at its peak.
10. It is also relevant factor that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santhini versus Vijaya Venketesh reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1 has held that video conferencing facilities are inadequate for proceedings in Family Court matters until and unless both the parties agree to same.
11. In the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A. S. Saravana Karthik, 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, the proceedings of Case No. 4061 of 2022, Nipun Agarwal versus Varalika Singh pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow stands transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj as per its allocation and shall be decided expeditiously without granting and due adjournments to either parties.
12. The aspect of video conferencing applies both ways and it is also evident that admittedly the opposite party is a member of the Indian Police Service, whose service is transferable all over the State and the facility ofvideo conferencing can be made available to him also.
13. The application, therefore, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2024/Satish
