Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shalini @ Shalu vs Akhilesh on 25 October, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 25th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 1950 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHALINI @ SHALU W/O AKHILESH BHATIA, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE SCHEME NO. 1 GALI NO. 2
LABOUR COLONY MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI SATISH JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT)
AND
AKHILESH S/O RAMESHWAR BHATIA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT SERVICE KHARIWAL COLONY
JAORA DISTRICT RATLAM PRESENTLY R/O CIVIL HOSPITAL
KUKSHI CAMPUS KUKSHI DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....NON-APPLICANT
(SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA SHRIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR NON-
APPLICANT)
______________________________________________________________
This application coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally
at motion stage.
(2) Heard on IA No.8103 of 2023 which is an application filed
under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for taking the
documents on record.
(3) Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application,
the same is allowed and the documents filed along with
application are taken on record. Accordingly, IA No.8103 of 2023
stands disposed of.
(4) This application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC')
seeking transfer of RCS HMA Case No.20 of 2022 pending before
the Second Additional District Judge, Tehsil - Jaora, District -
Ratlam (MP) to the Family Court, Mandsaur (MP).
(5) The facts of the case in nutshell are that applicant's marriage
was solemnized with non-applicant on 03.02.2017 as per Hindu
rites and rituals at Banswara (Rajasthan). Out of their wedlock, a
baby girl child was born who is now aged about three years. It is
stated that applicant is a housewife and on account of dowry issue,
she was constrained to leave the matrimonial house and thereafter
she preferred complaint against the non-applicant under the
provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
(6) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that non-applicant
is in Government service and is having sufficient clout in Jaora,
District - Ratlam (MP). The applicant is also apprehensive about
her security while going to attend the Court proceedings at Jaora,
Ratlam. The applicant's ancestral house is at Mandsaur and her
father is also a resident of Mandsaur. It is nowhere stated in
Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that a petition can
only be transferred to a place where she resides, instead, the
petition can be transferred to any place also, other than where she
resides. Further, the facts mentioned in the application have not
been refuted by non-applicant by filing appropriate affidavit. It is a
social legislation and only wife's convenience is required to be
seen. Further, if the case is transferred from Jaora to Mandsaur, no
harm or prejudice would be caused to the non-applicant. Counsel
for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sangeeta alias Shreya vs. Prashant
Vijay Wargiya reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 407 to
bolster his submissions. On above grounds, it is urged that case be
transferred from Tehsil-Jaora, District-Ratlam to District-
Mandsaur (MP).
(7) Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits
that documents filed by him as well as other documents on record,
it is clear that applicant has mentioned her residence as Banswara
(Rajasthan) and other cases relating to applicant are pending in
Banswara itself and therefore the case cannot be transferred to a
third place i.e. Mandsaur (MP). There is no dispute regarding the
fact that applicant is having a three year old baby girl. Evidently,
non-applicant is presently posted at Dhar. On above grounds, it is
urged that petition be dismissed.
8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record of the case.
(9) There is no dispute regarding the fact that while exercising
the power under Section 24 of CPC, primarily the convenience of
applicant/wife is to be seen and there is no specific mention in
Section 24 of CPC that a case can only be transferred to a place
where applicant resides. It is also evident from the submissions of
both the parties that applicant is having three year old baby girl.
(10) But from documents on record, it is clear that therein
applicant has mentioned her place of residence as Banswara
(Rajasthan) and it is evident that the case pending in Jaora,
District-Ratlam is sought to be transferred from Jaora Ratlam to
Mandsaur. Thus, if a case is filed in the Court of Jaora Ratlam, is
sought to be transferred to Banswara Court at Rajasthan, then, this
application would have to be filed before Hon'ble Apex Court and
evidently just to avoid this, the applicant has filed the present
petition before this Court for transferring the case from Jaora,
Ratlam to Mandsaur. This fact is also evident from Para 1 of
applicant's reply to application filed by non-applicant under
Section 126 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is also evident
that distance between Jaora, Ratlam to Mandsaur, is approximately
50 kilometers as per submission of counsel for the applicant.
Presently, non-applicant is posted at Dhar and not in Jaora Ratlam.
(11) As per the Rules, namely, "District Courts of Madhya
Pradesh Video Conferencing Rules, 2018" and in view of law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4) SCC, 601 and
Sarvesh Mathur vs. The Registrar General High Court of
Punjab and Haryana WP (Criminal) No.351 of 2023, evidence
can be recorded through video-conferencing. The applicant can
participate in the court proceedings through video conferencing.
(12) For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant
miscellaneous civil case and I deem it not proper to transfer the
case from Jaora, District - Ratlam to District - Mandsaur (MP).
This instant MCC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
Arun/-
ARUN Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=d5b56e3de75e7828ced1a96bc4f01804c3ea
1f0a5497e4019e41c0a82cbabbf0,
NAIR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=192F2423E128DC1CC004DD8FF22B3F
2FFC3D1EF75981FCBEF3B2B76823F270F7, cn=ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2023.10.26 15:09:26 +05'30'
