Smt. Sarita W/O Lalchand Bhargava ... vs Lalchand Bhargava S/O Tarachand ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 131 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 238/2019

Smt.   Sarita     W/o   Lalchand       Bhargava         D/o     Shri   Sadhuram
Bhargava, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Behind
Ganadia, Temple, Ratangarh ,district Churu
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Lalchand Bhargava S/o Tarachand Bhargava, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Vill. Ramsisar, Tehsil Ramgarh, Shekhawati District
Sikar (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vineet Dixit.
For Respondent(s)        :     None.


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
                         Order

07/01/2021

Instant Transfer Application has been filed by the applicant-

wife for transferring the case No.30/2018 pending in the court of

Additional District and Session Judge, Fatehpur District Sikar to

the court of Additional District and Session Judge, Ratangarh

District Churu.

Counsel for the applicant-wife submits that two other cases

are pending between the parties within the judgeship of Churu.

Counsel further submits that the applicant-wife being lady,

therefore, the comparative hardship is more to the applicant-wife

and if the matter is transferred to the court of Additional District

and Session Judge, Ratangarh District Churu then no hardship

would be caused to the respondent-husband.

In support of the contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

(2 of 2) [CTA-238/2019]

Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap

reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356 where in para

No.5 it has been held as under:-

"5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 Km. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to to note of."

Notice was issued to the respondent which as per the office

report has been received duly served but no one appeared on his

behalf despite service.

Heard counsel for the applicant-wife and perused the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case

and also considering the fact that two other cases are pending

between the parties within the judgeship of Churu and further the

fact that the applicant-wife is a lady and the comparative hardship

is more to the applicant-wife, I deem it just and proper to transfer

the case No.30/2018 pending in the court of Additional District

and Session Judge, Fatehpur District Sikar to the court of

Additional District and Session Judge, Ratangarh District Churu.

The Transfer Application is accordingly allowed. The case

No.30/2018 pending in the court of Additional District and Session

Judge, Fatehpur District Sikar is transferred to the court of

Additional District and Session Judge, Ratangarh District Churu.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

MG/07

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)