Haseen Bano vs Mohd. Israel
2014 Latest Caselaw 2542 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +                  TR.P.(C)13/2013

%
                                                            19th May, 2014

                 HASEEN BANO                                 ......Appellant
                         Through:        Ms. Monica Kapoor, Adv.


                          VERSUS

                 MOHD. ISRAEL                              ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Kapil Rustagi, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.     This is a petition under Section 24 CPC filed by the wife for transfer

of the suit filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights presently

pending in the Karkardooma Courts to the Family Court at Rohini where the

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant is pending.


2.     The following salient aspects persuade me to exercise my power

under Section 24 CPC in favour of the petitioner in the present case:-



Tr.P(C)13/2013

                                                                               Page 1 of 3
        (i)       Appellant-plaintiff is not earning anything. Though the

       respondent claimed that the appellant was working, however the

       appellant has specifically denied the stand of the respondent that she

       is working anywhere. Hence the appellant has no source of income.


       (ii)      The respondent is not even paying the interim maintenance

       although there is the order of the court to this effect in the petition

       under Section 125 Cr.P.C.


       (iii)     The respondent in his reply to this petition has said that both the

       cases, should in fact be transferred to a third court at Tis Hazari, and

       therefore, really the respondent does not mind if his petition is

       transferred to Tis Hazari. There is therefore no reason why his suit

       should not be transferred to the Family Court at Rohini where the

       petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is pending.


3.     No doubt power under Section 24 CPC are not exercised for the

convenience of the wife but I have already given above the salient facts

which persuade me in the peculiar facts of this case to exercise my power

under Section 24 CPC.



Tr.P(C)13/2013

                                                                                 Page 2 of 3
 4.     In view of the above, petition is allowed and suit no. 312/2011 titled

as Mohd. Israel vs. Haseen Bano & others pending in the court of      Shri

Anil Kumar, Judge Family Court at Vishwas Nagar, Delhi will stand

transferred to the Family Court at Rohini where maintenance petition under

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is pending in the court of Smt. Bimla Kumari,

Judge, Family Court, Rohini, Delhi which is titled as Hasin Bano vs. Mohd.

Israel.

5.     Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Let the concerned

Family Court at Vishwas Nagar, Karkardooma Court transfer the records of

the Suit No. 312/2011 titled as Mohd. Israel vs. Haseen Bano & others to

the Family Court at Rohini where the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of

the appellant is pending.




MAY 19, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

nk

Tr.P(C)13/2013