Ganesh Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Renu Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 3127 Chatt

                                1

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR



                      TPCR No. 11 of 2021

Ganesh Kumar Gupta

                                                    ---- Appellant

                      Versus



Smt. Renu Gupta & Others

                                                ---- Respondents

Post for pronouncement of order on 29/04/2022

JUDGE 29/04/2022

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR g

Judgment Reserved on : 22.02.2022

Judgment Delivered on : 29 .04.2022

TPCR No. 11 of 2021

Ganesh Kumar Gupta, S/o., Late Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, Aged about 36 years, R/o. War Tahsil Colony, Baghbahra, PS and Tahsil Baghbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Renu Gupta,W/o. Ganesh Kumar Gupta, Aged about 35 years

2. Diwakar Gupta, Age-13 years, S/o. Ganesh Kumar Gupta

3. Ku. Monika Gupta, Age 10 years, D/o. Shri Ganesh Kumar Gupta

4. Ku. Sakshi Gupta, Age 07years, Do.Ganesh Kumar Gupta

Name of Ganesh Kumar Gupta wrongly mentioned as Ganesh Kumar Mishra

Respondent No.2 to 4 are minor children, being represented by respondent No.1 Mother in relation, Permanent R/o. Village Bijali, District Gariyaband

At present R/o. C/o. Ashwani Gupta, At village Risama, PS Anda, Tahsil and District Durg (CG)

---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri J.A.Lohani, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Sarina Khan, Advocate

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Order

29 /04/2022

Petitioner/complainant has filed the instant petition under

Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. for transfer of Criminal M.J.C. Case No.

394/2020 pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family

Court, Durg, district Durg to the Family Court Mahasamund.

2. Case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner and the

respondent No.1 were married on 23.04.2008 and out of their

wedlock, they were having three children. It is alleged that due to

some family dispute on 24.11.20020, the respondent No.1 left her

matrimonial house along with her children and went to live at her

parent's house and thereafter, she filed application under Section 125

Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 22,000/- per month.

Thereafter the petitioner filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act for Restitution of conjugal Rights on 14.12.2029,

however, due to Covid-19, the notices were issued on 04.02.2021 to

the respondents for their presence on 06.03.2021 but the respondent

No.1 did not mark her presence and again notices were issued on

07.05.2021 and the matter was fixed for hearing on 22.06.2021.

3. The petitioner-husband filed application under Section 9 of the

Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Thereafter a divorce petition has been

filed by the respondent No.1. Since the respondent No.1/wife along

with her three children is living with her parents, she cannot undertake

long journey and contest the proceedings at Durg by neglecting her

minor children.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing

at Bagbahra, district Mahasamund whereas the respondents are

residing at Village Bijali, district Gariyaband and the case is pending

before the Family Court, Durg. He further submits that the petitioner is

residing with his mother who is old aged and bedridden. He submits

that he has filed his objection about the jurisdiction of the case as he

has to look after his ailing mother who is also bedridden and therefore

he is seeking for transfer of the case from Family Court, Durg to

Family Court at Mahasamund. Reliance has been placed by the

counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Krishna Veni Nagam Vs.

Harish Nagam reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150.

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has strongly

opposed the petition for transfer. He submits that the respondent No.1

has to travel a distance of about 120 kms. leaving her children alone

wasn't financially feasible for her.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

7. Both the parties have filed order sheets of the proceedings of

the lower court wherein at the title page of the petition under Section

125 Cr.P.C., the address of respondent/wife and children is written as :

Permanent resident of Village Bijali, District Gariyaband At present

residing at C/o. Shri Ashwani Gupta, Village Risama, P.S.Anda Tahsil

and District Durg (CG). In the cause title of the petitioner, the present

address of the respondent is written as Village Risama, PS Anda,

Tahsil and District Durg.

8. Notice to the petitioner has also been summoned through police

station Anda, district Durg and Station House Officer-PS Anda vide

letter dated 31.10.2021 informing the Additional Registrar that the

notices were received by the respondent No.1 and acknowledgements

there sent to this Court therefore it is clear from the documents that the

present address of the respondents is Durg and as per the guidelines

of the Apex Court, convenience of the wife is seen.

9. In the matter of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC

396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005)

12 SCC 237 it has been observed by the Apex Court that while going

into the merits of a transfer application, Courts are required to give

more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female

litigants, and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another

should ordinarily be allowed taking into consideration their

convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants

under undue hardships. In such type of matters, the convenience of

the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.."

10. Thus, having noticed the judgments of the Supreme Court

governing the principles relating to transfer of the petitions, in

matrimonial disputes and the fact that the respondent/wife is having

difficulty in traveling, and inability to bear the expenses and that she has to

leave her children alone at home and is incapable to bear the expenses of

travel as she is not earning and that she is dependent on her parents, this

Court is of the considered option that apparently, the respondent is woman

and staying at district Durg and according to her, she has no independent

source of earning whereas the husband is employed as peon at Tahsil Office

Bagbahra, district Mahasamund and is earning Rs. 30,000/-, he can bear the

costs and thus taking into consideration the convenience of the parties and

to meet the ends of justice and towards the expedience of justice for both

the parties, the transfer petition filed by the husband devoid of merits is

hereby rejected.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) Judge suguna