Neelu Reshu Jangid vs Abhishek Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 6495 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6495 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Neelu Reshu Jangid vs Abhishek Sharma on 4 March, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 2/2021

Smt. Neelu @ Reshu Jangid W/o Abhishek Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, D/o Shri Rajkendra Kumar Jangid R/o Nand Kunj, Near Shiv Mandir, Suthla, Jodhpur,rajasthan-342003

----Petitioner Versus Abhishek Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, R/o Plot No. 60, Govindpuri, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit.

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sanjay Sharma.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

04/03/2021

This petition under Section 24 CPC has been filed by the

applicant-wife for transfer of matrimonial case pending before the

Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan to Family Court, Jodhpur.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2015 at Jodhpur

and the parties separated in July, 2020 since then the petitioner is

residing at her parental home with parents at Jodhpur.

The respondent filed proceedings under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') before the Family Court No.1,

Jaipur alleging adultery against the petitioner.

Submissions have been made due to distance between

Jodhpur and Jaipur, the petitioner has difficulty in attending the

proceedings at Jaipur, inasmuch as, the petitioner does not have

(2 of 4) [CTA-2/2021]

any relative residing at Jaipur where she can stay, in case she has

to stay there during the night.

Further submissions have been made that as the petitioner is

preparing for competitive examination, her frequent travelling to

Jaipur would hamper her preparation. Averments have also been

made that on account of threatening given by the respondent, the

petitioner also fears for her safety, in case she travels to Jaipur for

attending the hearings and therefore, the proceedings be

transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur.

Reliance has been placed on Sanju v. Harinarayan : S.B.Civil

Transfer Application No.29/2015, decided on 05.01.2018.

A response has been filed to the application. Learned counsel

for the respondent emphasized that a notice Annex.R/1 was

issued to the petitioner with the allegations, which forms the

subject matter of the petition, which has not been responded. The

courts at Jaipur have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Further submissions have been made that the allegations

about safety of the petitioner are baseless, inasmuch as, the

police can support her and that as the respondent was in the

private job, on account of the pandemic, he lost his job and is

presently dependent on his parents, therefore, transfer of the

proceedings from Jaipur to Jodhpur would lead to his harassment.

Reference has been made to provisions of Section 21-A of

the Act to indicate that the matter should proceed at Jaipur only.

Reliance has been placed on Smt. Kalpana Deviprakash

Thakar v. Dr. Deviprakash Thakar : 1997(1) RLW (SC) 27.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

                                                 (3 of 4)               [CTA-2/2021]



     The    petition    has      been      filed    essentially    indicating   the

difficulties to be faced by the petitioner in case, the case is tried at

Jaipur based on inconvenience to the petitioner to travel to Jaipur,

lack of any support at Jaipur and apprehension in relation to her

safety at Jaipur.

Submissions have been denied and counter inconvenience on

account of lack of job has been projected.

This Court in Smt. Vinita v. Himanshu : AIR 2017 Raj. 102,

inter-alia, laid down as under :-

"It is, therefore, felt imperative to examine and explore the necessary principles governing transfer applications, filed by families, entangled in forensic fights, while invoking powers conferred upon this Court by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. It is true that the discretionary power, more particularly, the jurisdiction in relation to transfer of cases, can not be imprisoned or bound within a straight jacket or castiron formula, uniformly applicable to all situations, yet the courts are required to be mindful of the fact that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Generally speaking, they are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience arising out of a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence or the points involved in the case; issues raised by the parties; and, reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might not get justice in the court, where the proceedings are pending, or reasonable apprehension of failure of justice on the basis of a proven bias. These few factors are some of the aspects, germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings.

It may be true that distance alone may not be decisive factor but it has its own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition."

In view of the principles laid down in the case of Vinita

(supra), which judgment has been followed in the case of Sanju

(4 of 4) [CTA-2/2021]

(supra), the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the

proceedings from Jaipur to Jodhpur on account of her

inconvenience and difficulties in attending the proceedings at

Jaipur, which appears to be genuine.

So far as judgment in the case of Kalpana Deviprakash

Thakar (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondent is

concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking into

consideration the fact that the respondent-husband therein was a

medical practitioner, whose absence would cause difficulty to his