Gujarat High Court
Darshana W/O Ravikant Kheradiya D/O ... vs Ravikant Rameshbhai Kheradiya on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 499 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
DARSHANA W/O RAVIKANT KHERADIYA D/O POPATJI RAOL
Versus
RAVIKANT RAMESHBHAI KHERADIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKYKUMAR B PARMAR(13411) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vickykumar B. Parmar for the
applicant.
2. The present application is filed under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC") by the wife of the opponent seeking transfer of Family
Suit No.260 of 2024, filed by the opponent at Family Court
Surat, to Family Court Gandhinagar.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Parmar submits that the opponent
has filed a Hindu Marriage petition - Family Suit No. 260 of
2024 against the applicant in Family Court, Surat, seeking
divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1955").
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Parmar would submit that the
applicant is residing with her parents at Gandhinagar and
serving as an Accountant with the Director of Pension and
Provident Fund at Gandhinagar.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Parmar would submit that the
distance between Gandhinagar to Surat is about 288
kilometers.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Parmar would submit that
considering the vocation of the applicant and the distance
between Gandhinagar and Surat, it would be inconvenient for
the applicant to attend the proceedings at Family Court, Surat.
3.4 Learned advocate Mr. Parmar would further submit
that the comparative hardship to the opponent would be much
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
less compared to the hardship of the applicant if the
proceeding initiated by him at Family Court, Surat is
transferred to Family Court Gandhinagar.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Parmar would submit that in
past, the applicant was threatened by the opponent and her in-
laws. There is also a risk to her well-being if she visits Surat.
3.6 Making the above submission, learned advocate Mr.
Parmar would request this court to accept the request of the
applicant, thereby transferring Family Suit No. 260 of 2024
from Family Court, Surat to Family Court, Gandhinagar.
4. No other further submissions are made.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Parmar at length and gone
through the documents annexed with the application.
6. It appears that the marriage of the applicant with the
opponent was solemnized on 14/12/2013, and they were
blessed with a boy, namely Veer, on 11/7/2015, who is aged
about nine years as of date. The applicant is alleged to have
left her matrimonial home due to disharmony between the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
couple and has been residing separately from the opponent
since January, 2020. It further appears that the minor son of
the applicant is residing with the opponent since his birth. It
also appears that the applicant has filed one criminal
complaint before Surat police on 27th February, 2020, but
nothing further has been either stated by the applicant or
brought before this court regarding the outcome of that
complaint.
7. The record suggests that prior to the filing of Family Suit
No.260 of 2024, the opponent husband had filed Family Suit
No. 224 of 2022 before Family Court Surat against the
applicant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
which got decreed against the applicant on 23rd November,
2023. As the applicant had not complied with the aforesaid
decree passed by the competent court under Section 9 of the
Act, 1955, the opponent appears to have filed Family Suit No.
260 of 2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, 1955.
8. The applicant appears to have entered her appearance in
the aforesaid suit through her lawyer, and the case status
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
submitted by the applicant with her application suggests that it
was at the stage of filing a written statement. Learned
advocate Mr. Parmar states that as there were settlement talks
going on, but till date, no written statement has been filed by
the applicant.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that, due to the following reasons, the
prayer made in the application does not deserve consideration
by this court:
9.1 The applicant is an literate lady working as an
accountant in the office of the Director of Pension and
Provident Fund Gandhinagar.
9.2 The applicant has the option to appear through video
conferencing to attend the proceedings filed and pending
before Family Court, Surat, for which she does not have to
travel from Gandhinagar to Surat on every date.
9.3 The applicant, having engaged her lawyer, who was
claimed to be availed through legal aid, can have her interests
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
well protected by her lawyer, who is engaged and appearing in
the Family Court at Surat.
9.4 The applicant, having failed to honor the decree
passed by Family Court, Surat in Family Suit No. 224 of 2022,
thereby, granted a decree in favor of the opponent husband
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby,
after a lapse of a year, automatically gave rise to the opponent
to claim divorce as per Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act 1955.
9.5 Prima facie, according to this court, considering the
nature of the family suit under the aforesaid provision under
which it was filed, there would not be long-drawn proceedings
and evidence to be led by the respective parties except to
prove the ingredients of the aforesaid section under which the
family suit has been filed.
9.6 It is also required to be noted that the minor boy
Veer, who is residing with the opponent and is aged about
nine years as of date, has to be looked after by the opponent.
9.7 It appears that the opponent is not a government
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
servant like the applicant. Considering the fact that the minor
boy, who is residing with the applicant, needs more care,
attention and protection by the opponent, if the prayer made
in the present application is accepted, it would be more
inconvenient for the opponent to fulfill his obligations as a
father toward his son.
9.8 Now, considering the advancement of technology and
the facilities available at every Family Court setup in the state
of Gujarat, parties to the proceedings can appear and contest
such proceedings through video conferencing, for which their
personal presence is not required on each and every
adjournment. The concept of inconvenience, which is so
projected by the applicant in her application concerning the
distance, is ill-founded because of the advancement of
technology and the facilities, which are provided by the Family
Court to litigants.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, I
am of the view that no case is made out by the applicant to
exercise my power under Section 24 of CPC to transfer Family
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/499/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
Suit No. 260 of 2024 from Family Court Surat to Family Court
Gandhinagar, as prayed for. The present application lacks merit
and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby REJECTED.
No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MOHD MONIS
