Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Komal vs Abhishek on 12 December, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2215 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. KOMAL W/O ABHISHEK CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O LIG 240,
VEER SAWARKAR NAGAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY
DHAMNOD DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ASHISH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
ABHISHEK S/O SHRI MANOHARLAL CHAUHAN, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LOCO PILOT R/O 48-B
PRITI NAGAR NEAR PREM AVENUE MAKSI ROAD,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner/wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC
seeking transfer of HMA No.479/2021 (Abhishek Chauhan Vs. Komal
Chauhan) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain to Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, district Dhar.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no
source of income. The distance between Dharampuri to Ujjain is 150 Kms.
There is nobody to accompany her for attending the Court proceedings. It is
further submitted that already two cases are pending at Dharampuri. On above
grounds, it is prayed that case HMA No.479/2021 (Abhishek Chauhan Vs.
Komal Chauhan) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain be
transferred to Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, district Dhar.
3 . Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of
transfer of the case and prays for dismissal of the petition by submitting that so
far as case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Section 498-A of IPC is
concerned, he has initiated proceedings for quashment of above case. It is
further submitted that it is the respondent who filed case under Section 12 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter, petitioner filed application under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Dharampur, district Dhar. On above grounds it is prayed that case from Ujjain
to Dharampuri cannot be transferred.
4. Heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties
and perused the record of the case.
5. Recently, it is seen that on account of leniency shown by the Court,
this Court is flooded with applications under Section 24 of CPC. Therefore, it
is essential that Court is required to consider each petition on its own merit as
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das
(2006) 9 SCC 197.
6. From the perusal of the record of the case it is evident that
respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act
against the petitioner before the Family Court, Ujjain on 08.11.2021 and
thereafter on 25.02.2022 petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. against the present respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Dharampuri, district Dhar. Further, petitioner is not having small child.
Presently, there is also facility of video conferencing, therefore, it is not
necessary to physically appear before any Court on each date of hearing.
Further if there is financial constraint for attending the Court physically then the
petitioner may approach the concerned Court for the same. In this connection I
would like to refer to the judgment in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das
(2006) 9 SCC 197 and Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC
7. Hence, in view of above and the principles of law laid down in the
case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 and Preeti Sharma
Vs. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535, this Court is of the considered
opinion that it is not a fit case for transfer.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
RJ
