Gujarat High Court
Deepaben W/O Sunilbhai Devnani vs Sunilbhai Ashokbhai Devnani on 10 February, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/MCA/655/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 655 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
1 NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
3 NO
of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
=======================================
DEEPABEN W/O SUNILBHAI DEVNANI
Versus
SUNILBHAI ASHOKBHAI DEVNANI
=======================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT MAKWANA(3622) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 10/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
2. The Court had issued Notice on 13.10.2021 which is duly
served upon the respondent, however, the respondent has put in
no appearance, either in person or through an advocate, leaving
no option for the Court but to proceed with the matter.
C/MCA/655/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
3. The present application under Section 24 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) is filed by the applicant - wife
seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 76 of 2021, filed by the
respondent - husband under the provisions of Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Anand, to the
Family Court at Rajkot.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the marriage of the
applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.02.2007 as
per the Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, they have
two children. It is submitted that, regular disputes between the
parties led to separation and triggered litigation between them
and the applicant is residing at Rajkot with her two children.
5. Heard, the learned advocate Mr. Hemant Makwana for the
applicant - wife. It is submitted that the respondent - husband
has filed the above-referred family suit before the Family Court at
Anand, whereas, the present applicant resides at Rajkot with her
two children. It is submitted that the distance between Rajkot
and Anand is very long i.e. about 300 kms. and in the
circumstance, it would be very difficult for the applicant - wife to
travel to Anand for attending the Court proceedings with her
minor children. Further, the applicant has no means of earning.
Further, the applicant has filed an application for maintenance
before the learned Family Court at Rajkot as well as a Criminal
Case against the present respondent and to attend the said
proceedings, the respondent has to visit Rajkot and accordingly,
it would be in the fitness of things if the family suit in question
may also be transferred to the Family Court at Rajkot.
5.1 Furthermore, for attending the Court proceedings at Anand,
the applicant would require a companion. Besides, in view of the
C/MCA/655/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
distance between the two places, the applicant will have to incur
expenses towards lodging and boarding also. The learned
advocate for the applicant further submitted that, as against this,
if the suit is transferred to Rajkot, in that case, the respondent
will not have to suffer this much difficulties as compared to the
present applicant, moresowhen, the respondent visits Rajkot for
aforesaid litigation. Further, the respondent is hale and hearty
and hence, there would be no question of comparative hardship.
Making above submissions, it is requested that present
application may be allowed as requested for.
6. Regard being had to the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the applicant and considering the material
placed on record, it appears that the applicant has sought
transfer of aforesaid family suit filed by the respondent husband
for divorce from Family Court, Anand to the Family Court, Rajkot.
In the circumstance, if the distance between two places are
considered, it is about 300 kms. Further, the applicant has minor
children and will have to travel this long distance with them.
Further, as contended by the learned advocate for the applicant,
two litigation, at the instance of the present applicant are going
on against the respondent herein at Rajkot and accordingly, the
respondent has to visit Rajkot for attending the same. Besides,
the respondent has not appeared before the Court to resist this
application. As stated by the learned advocate for the applicant,
there is no case of comparative hardship and in the
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
matter requires favourable consideration, moresowhen, the
respondent has put in no appearance despite sufficient
opportunity is given and when the exercise of discretion under
Section 24 of the CPC is commonplace, where, the grounds are
genuine and convincing.
C/MCA/655/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/02/2022
6.1 This Court has assistance of decision rendered in the case of
Minesh Rajnikant Dalal v. Avani Minesh Dalal, 2002 (2)
GLR 1685. This Court has also referred to a decision in the case
of Jayshreeba Jayendrasinh Raulji V. Jayendrasinh
ganpatsinh Raulji, rendered in MCA No. 431 of 2019.
6.2 In the backdrop as aforesaid, present application succeeds
and is allowed accordingly. The Family Suit No. 76 of 2021,
pending before the Family Court at Anand, is directed to be
transferred to the Family Court at Rajkot. Upon transfer, the
Family Court, Rajkot shall inform the parties and proceed with the
matter in accordance with law.
7. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no orders as to
costs.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
