Jharkhand High Court
Neha Kumari @ Neha vs Vijay Anand on 22 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 37 of 2021
----
Neha Kumari @ Neha .............. Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Anand ..... Opposite party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite party : Mr. Deonandan Rajak, Advocate
---
04/22.07.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Parties are spouses who are litigating for custody of the child in
Original Suit No. 16 of 2021 instituted by the opposite party under Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 before learned Family Court, Koderma.
Petitioner wants it to be transferred to the Family Court, Dhanbad on the
ground that she is residing with minor girl child at Dhanbad and earlier
Matrimonial (Title) Original Suit No. 23 of 2020 instituted under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the opposite party was transferred from Family
Court, Koderma to the Family Court, Dhanbad vide order dated 20th
November, 2021 passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2021. There is
another maintenance case bearing no. 454 of 2020 instituted by the petitioner
which is pending before learned Family Court, Dhanbad. Therefore, petitioner
who is unable to properly attend to the proceedings at Family Court, Koderma
may be seriously prejudiced if the Guardianship Suit is decided against her in
her absence. In any case, opposite party has to attend to the proceedings of the
maintenance case at Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer. He
submits that the petitioner has not been cooperating in the proceedings of
Guardianship suit at Koderma though Koderma and Dhanbad is not separated
by huge distance. Learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to
judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in T.A No. 173 of 2022 (O&M)
[Manpreet Kaur Vs. Gurbaksh Singh] judgment dated 26th May, 2022 and
Apex Court passed in the case of Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma
reported in (2005) 11 SCC 535.
4. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
From the narration taken note above, it is evident that on similar consideration,
the Matrimonial (Title) Original Suit No. 23 of 2020 instituted by the opposite
party under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was transferred by this
Court from Family Court, Koderma to Family Court, Dhanbad in Transfer
Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2021. Those considerations may also apply in the
present petition seeking transfer of Guardianship suit from Koderma to
Dhanbad since petitioner has a minor child to maintain and does not have
consistent source of income out of legal profession, which she has joined
reportedly in May, 2021. The decision in the case of Manpreet Kaur (supra)
relied upon by the opposite party is on facts and no ratio of universal
application could be drawn to the different facts situation as in present case.
Further in the case of Preeti Sharma (supra), the Apex Court had taken note
of the fact that merely because the petitioner was a lady and unemployed, no
substantial ground for transfer could be made out since the petitioner has not
applied for transfer of all the cases pending in Delhi to Muzaffar Nagar. As
between the parties herein Matrimonial (Title) Original Suit no. 23 of 2020 has
been earlier transferred to learned Family Court Dhanbad from Koderma,
which order has attained finality. There are no other cases pending before the
Court at Koderma which the petitioner is seeking transfer to the Family Court
Dhanbad, other than the present Guardianship Suit. The Maintenance Suit
instituted by the petitioner is pending before Family Court, Dhanbad.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Original Suit No. 16 of
2021 deserves to be transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Koderma to learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad.
Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, this application is allowed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Jk/
