Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pooja Garothiya vs Jitendra @ Jeet on 18 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
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2245 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. POOJA GAROTHIYA W/O JITENDRA @ JEET ARYA
D/O INDER VERMA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O FLAT NO. 14, I2
GOVT.MULTY SAGAR TAL ROAD GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI BHAGWAN RAJ PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER )
AND
JITENDRA @ JEET S/O SURESH BABU ARYA, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE MPPKVVCL
MANDSAUR R/O WARD NO. 1 D 9 132 KV CHAMBAL
COLONY P.S Y.D. NAGAR MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15.12.2023
Pronounced on : 18.12.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This miscellaneous appeal having been heard and reserved for
orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar
Paliwal pronounced the following
ORDER
The petitioner/wife has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC
seeking transfer of RCS HMA 159/2023 pending before Principal Judge, Family
Court, Mandsaur to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no
source of income. The distance between Gwalior and Mandsaur is 600 Kms.
and there is also no direct connectivity. There is no male member in the family
except her old aged father and it is very difficult for her to attend the Court
proceedings. On above grounds, it is prayed that case RCS HMA 159/2023
pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur be transferred to the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has
relied upon the judgments in the case of Pratibha Vs. Krishna 2018 (1)
MPLJ 690 and Saifali Saraf Vs. Aantriksha Saraf 2017 (4) MPLJ 196.
4. Heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties
and perused the record of the case.
5. It is correct that distance between Gwalior to Mandsaur is
approximately 600 Kms. and there is no direct connectivity between them.
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, petitioner is not having any minor child. If there is financial constraint
for attending the Court physically then the petitioner may approach the
concerned Court for the same under appropriate legal provision. So far as the
case of Pratibha Vs. Krishna 2018 (1) MPLJ 690 and Saifali Saraf Vs.
Aantriksha Saraf 2017 (4) MPLJ 196 are concerned, in Pratibha (Supra),
petitioner has two minor children, whereas in Saifali (Supra) when petitioner
came to attend the Court proceedings, she was assaulted. But in the instant
case, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is apprehending any
threat to her life or liberty. Further, petitioner is not having any minor child,
therefore, the principles of law laid down in the above cases does not apply in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
6. 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.
7. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras and principles of
law laid down in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197,
Pratibha Vs. Krishna 2018 (1) MPLJ 690 and Saifali Saraf Vs.
Aantriksha Saraf 2017 (4) MPLJ 196, 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
