Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Phoolmani @ Pintu Bairagi D/O ... vs Arun Kumar Bairagi @ Janu Bairagi on 16 March, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
MCC No.2788/2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCC No.2788/2019
Smt. Phoolmani @ Pintu Bairagi
Versus
Arun Kumar Bairagi @ Jani Bairagi
Jabalpur, Dated: 16.03.2021
Mr. Arun Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.
Heard.
The instant application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of
civil suit i.e. HM No.104-A/2018 pending before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Mandla to Family Court, Jabalpur.
2. Facts
of the case in short are that the applicant and the
respondent entered into marriage on 26.04.2016 as per Hindu
Rites at Jabalpur. Thereafter dispute arose between them and
they started living separately. Pursuant thereto, the respondent
initiated proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce from the applicant. On
receiving a notice of the said case, the applicant appeared
before the Family Court, Mandla and moved an application
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
transferring the said case from Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mandla to Family Court, Jabalpur, but the same is still pending
and no order thereon has been passed so far. The applicant
thereafter moved an application under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Jabalpur
registered as MJC No.110/2019 for getting maintenance, but
the same is also pending for final adjudication.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the other
MCC No.2788/2019
proceeding of Domestic Violence Act registered as MJC
No.6589/2019 is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jabalpur and as such, it would be proper to transfer
the case pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mandla to Family Court, Jabalpur so that all the proceedings
may be initiated at one place which will be convenient for the
parties too. He submits that being a lady that too having no
earning source, it is difficult for the applicant to attend the
hearing of matrimonial case pending before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Mandla. He also submits that the
respondent is involved in the business of transportation (tours
and travells), therefore, it would not be difficult for him to
come to Jabalpur and to attend the case proceedings and on the
contrary, it is inconvenient for the applicant to go to Mandla
and to attend the hearing of matrimonial dispute. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed
reliance upon the judgments viz Lakshmi Nagdev Vs.
Jitendra Kumar Nagdev [2004 (4) MPLJ 310] and Smt.
Paramjeet Kaur Vs. Dharampal Singh [2007 (2) MPHT
344].
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant and submits that merely because the applicant is a
lady, it would not be proper to transfer the case from Mandla to
Jabalpur as per her own request. He submits that the case filed
by the respondent was prior in time, whereas all the
proceedings initiated by the applicant in Jabalpur at a later
point of time, are nothing but just an afterthought. He submits
that the applicant has already moved an application under
Section 125 of the CrPC for granting maintenance pendente
lite and if the Court will find fit, suitable compensation would
be awarded to her and as such, she would not face any
inconvenience.
MCC No.2788/2019
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an undisputed fact that despite pendency of the suit
before the Family Court, Mandla, no order has been passed on
the applicant's application filed under Section 24 of the CPC
by the Family Court, Mandla as also on the application filed
under Section 125 of the CrPC for granting maintenance no
order has been passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur too. The
respondent is not a Government servant, but involved in the
business of transportation (tours and travels), therefore, the
distance of Jabalpur from Mandla which is almost 100 kms will
not create any inconvenience for him. This Court in the case
Lakshmi Nagdev (supra) has observed as under:-
"The petitioner-wife made out a case for transfer of
the suit filed by he respondent-husband.
Admittedly, the petitioner is having a small child.
She is residing with her parents at Bhilai, District
Durg, her parents are old and infirm and there is
nobody to accompany her at Katni which is more
than 465 kms. from Durg. The petitioner had filed
a petition seeking transfer firstly, in the month of
March 2004 itself, the delay being caused due to
bona fide belief of her counsel that the petition is
not maintainable. For this mistake on the part of
her counsel she should not be made to suffer. The
prayer for transfer of suit cannot be rejected
merely because the respondent has deposited the
traveling expenses. It is not the expenses alone
which are to be taken into consideration while
considering the petition filed on behalf of the wife
for transfer of suit filed by the husband, but other
factors as stated above also play important role.
For the reasons stated above the petition is
allowed."
7. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of
Laxmi (supra) and Smt. Paramjeet Kaur (supra), I am
inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the application
filed by the applicant is allowed and it is directed that civil suit
HM No.104-A/2018 pending before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mandla, be transferred to Family Court,
MCC No.2788/2019
Jabalpur. Record of the said case be also transmitted to the
Family Court, Jabalpur with immediate effect.
8. Resultantly, the application filed by the applicant
stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Devashish
Digitally signed by
DEVASHISH MISHRA
Date: 2021.03.19
18:12:56 +05'30'
