Gujarat High Court
Shaweta Kaushikkumar Joshi vs Milankumar Surayakantbhai ... on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/MCA/826/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 826 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SHAWETA KAUSHIKKUMAR JOSHI
Versus
MILANKUMAR SURAYAKANTBHAI PANDYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
JUCKY LUCKY CHAN(8033) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 30/03/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the
applicant.
3. Though notice is served upon the respondent and sufficient
time is also given to the respondent but today, also none is present
C/MCA/826/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2022
for the respondent.
4. The present application under Section-24 of the Civil
Procedure Code,1908 (for short the Code) is filed by the applicant-
wife to transfer the Hindu Marriage Petition No.207 of 2021, which is
pending before the learned Family Court, Bhavnagar to the Family
Court at Vadodara.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant - wife got
married as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 12.5.2018 with the
present respondent- husband. That, from the said wed lock, there is
no child. That, initially the married life was good but after some
time, there is quarrel over petty issues. That, the applicant wife has
given mental and physical torture to the respondent- husband. That,
on 8.5.2019 without informing to any one, the applicant-wife left her
matrimonial house with the sum of Kariyavar, Streedhan along with
jewellery and marriage gifts which the applicant had brought.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan for the applicant
vehemently argued in the present case that the distance between
the Vadodara and Bhavnagar is approximately more than 210 Km.
He further submitted that the applicant is a lady and having no
proper means of income as well as she dependent on her parents.
He also submitted that the applicant -wife has been deserved by her
husband and therefore, it is very difficult for the applicant -wife to
attend court proceedings Family Court at Bhavnagar. He requested
C/MCA/826/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2022
that the proceedings are pending before Court of learned Family
Court, Bhavnagar may be transferred to the Family Court at
Vadodara.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned advocate
for the applicant, it is clear that the distance between Bhavnagar to
Vadodara is about 210 Km and the applicant - wife has no source of
income and she is dependent on her parents, which may cause
hardship for the applicant to attend the Court at Bhavnagar every
time, upon such premises, it would be just and proper to transfer
the Hindu Marriage Petition No.207 of 2021, which is pending before
the learned Family Court, Bhavnagar to the Family Court at
Vadodara. This Court has also relied upon the decisions rendered in
the case of Minesh Rajnikant Dalal v/s. Avani Minesh Dalal,
reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1685 also referred to the decision made
in the case of Jayshreeba Jayendrasinh Raulji Vs. Jayendrasinh
ganpatsinh Raulji in MCA no. 431 of 2019. Therefore, this is a fit
case to exercise discretion under section 24 of CPC for transferring
the matter from Bhavnagar to Vadodara. The application is allowed.
The proceedings of the Hindu Marriage Petition No.207 of 2021,
which is pending before the learned Family Court at Bhavnagar be
transferred to the Family Court at Vadodara. Rule is made absolute.
No orders as to cost. Direct service is permitted.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
prk
