Gujarat High Court
Darshani Maullikbhai Soni vs Maullik Narhariprasad Soni on 17 June, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/MCA/930/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 930 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DARSHANI MAULLIKBHAI SONI
Versus
MAULLIK NARHARIPRASAD SONI
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAUSHAL H PATEL(9328) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RESHMA RAUMA for MR SHAKEEL QURESHI for the Opponent
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 17/06/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Reshma Rauma,
learned advocate appearing for Mr.Shakeel Qureshi,
learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the
respondent.
2. The present application under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"), is
preferred by the applicant, who happens to be the wife of
the respondent to transfer Family Suit No.161 of 2019 filed
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short
C/MCA/930/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021
"the HM Act") before the Family Court, Nadiad by the
respondent to the Family Court, Rajkot. With consent of
learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is
taken up for final disposal.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are
not many and move in a narrow compass. The marriage
between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on
4.6.2015 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Rajkot. A
daughter named "Mahi" aged about 5 years at present, is
born out of this wedlock. Thereafter, differences and
disputes arose between the applicant and the respondent
and as a result of this, the applicant along with the
daughter "Mahi" started living with the parents. The
applicant had preferred an application being Criminal
Misc. Application No.1165 of 2019 under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 in the Court of
learned Principal Judge Family Court, Rajkot for
maintenance for herself and the daughter. Thereafter,
respondent, who is a businessman, has preferred an
application being Family Suit No.161 of 2019 filed under
Section 9 of the HM Act, in the Family Court, Nadiad for
conjugal rights . The applicant has, therefore, preferred
the present application under Section 24 of the Code for
transfer of Family Suit No.161 of 2019 from the learned
Family Court, Nadiad to the Court of the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Rajkot.
4. I have heard Mr.Kaushal Patel, learned advocate for
C/MCA/930/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021
the applicant and Ms.Reshma Rauma, learned advocate
appearing for Mr.Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for
the respondent.
5. Mr.Patel, learned advocate for the applicant submits
that one way distance from Nadiad to Rajkot is 230 km. He
further submits that the applicant is the housewife and
has responsibility of 5 years old minor daughter. He
further submits that the applicant and her daughter are
living a dependent life with the parents of the applicant.
He further submits that the applicant has filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code, which is
pending before the Court of learned Principal Judge Family
Court, Rajkot. He further submits that in absence of any
income, it would be difficult for the applicant to bear
travelling and other expenses to attend proceedings of
Family Suit in Family Court, Nadiad. It is his further
submission that transfer of the family suit would not cause
any inconvenience to the respondent, who earns huge
income from business. He further submits that in any case
the respondent has to attend proceedings of application
under Section 125 of the Code taken out by the applicant
at Rajkot.
6. Mr.Patel, learned advocate has relied upon the
judgment of this Court dated 15.6.2021 passed in Misc.
Civil Application 220 of 2021 in the case of Falguni D/
o Sudhirbhai Ambarambhai Jadav vs Mukesh
Ramanlal Parmar. He, therefore, urges that the Family
C/MCA/930/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021
Suit No.161 of 2019 filed by the respondent in the Family
Court, Nadiad may be transferred to the Family Court,
Rajkot.
7. On the other hand, Ms.Reshma Rauma, learned
advocate appearing for Mr.Shakeel Qureshi, learned
advocate for the respondent has opposed the application.
She submits that transferring Family Suit No.161 of 2019
from Family Court, Nadiad to Family Court, Rajkot would
cause hardships and inconvenience to the respondent.
She further submits that business of the respondent would
suffer, if he is made to travel all the way to Rajkot from
Nadiad to attend his suit. She, therefore, urges that the
present application may be rejected.
8. I have give thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made by the learned advocates for the
respective parties.
9. It is undisputed fact that the respondent is a
businessman and the applicant has preferred an
application being Criminal Misc. Application No.1165 of
2019 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure
1973 in the Family Court, Rajkot for maintenance of
herself and the daughter.
10. As the respondent has to attend proceedings of the
application under Section 125 of the Code preferred by
the applicant-wife, in my considered view, transferring
C/MCA/930/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2021
Family Suit No.161 of 2019 from Family Court, Nadiad to
Family Court, Rajkot would not cause any inconvenience
to the respondent.
11. On the other hand, in my considered opinion, if
Family Suit No.161 of 2019 preferred by the respondent is
not transferred to the Family Court, Rajkot, inconvenience
would not be caused to the respondent whereas, the
applicant would have to spend travelling and other
expenses to attend the proceedings of suit in Family
Court, Nadiad leaving behind 5 years old daughter at
Rajkot. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh
vs Kumar Sanjay, reported in 2001 10 SCC 41 has
observed that it is the inconvenience of the wife that must
be looked at. In the circumstances indicated hereinabove,
the case of the applicant to transfer of Family Suit No.161
of 2019 from Nadiad Court to Rajkot Court deserves to be
allowed.
12. In view of the above, the present application
succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Family Suit No.161 of
2019 preferred by the respondent and pending in the
Family Court, Nadiad is hereby transferred to the Family
Court, Rajkot for disposal in accordance with law. In view
of the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
ALI
