Gujarat High Court
Vaghela Dipikaben D/O. Dahyabhai ... vs Naginbhai Bhanubhai Rohit on 2 May, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/MCA/329/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 329 of 2020
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 ?
==========================================================
VAGHELA DIPIKABEN D/O. DAHYABHAI AND W/O NAGINBHAI
BHANUBHAI ROHIT
Versus
NAGINBHAI BHANUBHAI ROHIT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RAKSHA S DIKSHIT(5568) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 02/05/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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 proceeding of H.M.P. Suit No. 13 of 2019
pending before the the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge
at Anand to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kheda on the grounds
mentioned in the memo of application.
C/MCA/329/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Raksha S. Dikshit for the
applicant. Though rule is served and sufficient time is granted, none
is appearing for the respondent, leaving no option but to proceed
with the matter.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the
applicant - wife and the respondent - husband was solemnized on
21.1.2014 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Nadiad. That, the
respondent - husband is serving in the Army. That, from the said
wedlock, the applicant - wife given birth to two female child viz.
Mahi and Tanvi. That, the respondent - husband has filed a H.M.P.
Suit No.13 of 2019 under Sections 13(1)(1-a)(1-b) of the Hindu
Marriage Act before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Raksha Dikshit for the applicant
submitted that the applicant - wife is not having any source of
income. She further submitted that the applicant is having aged
mother - father and applicant has to take care of her parents. She
further submitted that the applicant is having girl child aged about
two and half years and therefore, it is difficult for the applicant to
attend proceedings at Anand. Learned advocate for the applicant
has urged that the H.M.P. Suit No. 13 of 2019 pending before the
the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Anand may be
transfer to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kheda.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned
C/MCA/329/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
advocate for the applicant in the present case, the distance
between Anand and Kheda is very less, i.e. about 40 Kms. This Court
has also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Gayatri Mohapatra Vs. Ashit Kumar Panda reported
in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 731, wherein it is held that
transfer of proceedings in the matrimonial dispute, where the ability
to travel and where the petitioner wife had filed petition for transfer
(to Cuttack, Orissa) of matrimonial case filed by the respondent
husband (before the Family Court, Meerut) on ground that she
would not be able to travel to attend the hearing, but pleadings
established that she had travelled from place to place in connection
with her family business and held that her ground was not a valid
one for seeking transfer.
This Court has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (Supra),
wherein, it is held that transfer of proceedings in the matrimonial
disputes, where the wife has filed a transfer petition on the ground
of her difficulty to attend the Court at Delhi because of having a
child of six years, having no source of income and not keeping good
health. The leniency to ladies shown by court in such transfer
matters often misused and taken advantage of by women, so court
is now required to consider each petition on its merits. In that case,
grandparents were available to look after the child and respondent
was willing to bear all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner
C/MCA/329/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2022
and her companion for every visit to attend court at Delhi. The
petitioner except for stating that she was not keeping good health,
gave no particulars and she can apply for exemption from attending
Court at Delhi on a particular date and court will consider the same
on merits. Thus, no ground for transfer made out and directions
given to respondent and Family Court. This Court has also
considered the judgment in the case of Ekta Gopalbhai Bhavsar
Vs. Manishkumar Babubhai Mistry in Misc. Civil Application
No.564 of 2019.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no
need of liberal approach in the case of transfer of the matter.
Further, in this case, the distance is very short between Anand to
Kheda, upon such premises also the application is not required to be
allowed.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this
Court is of the opinion that the present application is devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed.
However, the respondent - husband is directed to pay Rs.1000/- for
to and fro expenses including ancillary expense to the applicant-wife
as and when she attends the proceedings at Anand. Rule is
discharged.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
prk
