Rajasthan High Court
Teenakshi Kanwar W/O Mahaveer ... vs Mahaveer Sing S/O Bahadur Singh on 19 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 56/2020
Teenakshi Kanwar W/o Mahaveer Singh D/o Rajendra Singh,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 1-L-22, Mahaveer Nagar-III,
Kota District Kota (Raj)
----Applicant
Versus
Mahaveer Sing S/o Bahadur Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village Faredua Upreti, Police Station Kelwara, Tehsil
Shahbad, District Baran (Raj)
----Non-applicant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
19/04/2022
1. This transfer application has been filed by applicant-wife
seeking transfer of divorce petition No.40/2019 filed by non-
applicant- husband from Family Court, Baran to Family Court,
Kota.
2. The relevant facts of the case which emerges from record are
that:-
(i) Parties entered into marriage on 26.04.2016 at
Kota and there is no issue out of said wedlock.
(ii) Applicant is an educated women having degree
of post graduation as well as having background of
candidate of NCC.
(iii) Prior to filing of divorce petition on
14.03.2019, non-applicant had file an application
for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family
(2 of 3) [CTA-56/2020]
Court, Baran which was finally decided and allowed
vide judgment dated 04.01.2018.
(iv) Applicant has appeared in the present divorce
petition to contest the same and have filed her
reply. The divorce petition is pending at the stage
of evidence of non-applicant- husband.
(v) Applicant has lodged a criminal case under
Section 307 read with Section 354 IPC against
non-applicant and her in-laws.
(vi) Application for maintenance filed by applicant
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court,
Kota is said to be decided finally vide order dated
29.11.2018.
3. Applicant has sought transfer of divorce petition, mainly on
the ground of leveling allegations against Presiding Officer of
Family Court, Baran that Presiding Officer is not fair to adjudicate
the issue and he is in influence of non-applicant as also have
biasness towards applicant.
4. Having heard counsel for both parties and perused the
record as also in the backdrop of aforesaid facts, it appears that
applicant has filed this transfer application without sufficient and
justified reasons, rather cropping up a ground for transfer, leveling
allegations against concerned Presiding Officer. From the entire
record, it nowhere reveals that on what basis applicant levelled
such serious allegations against Presiding Officer. Even the perusal
of proceedings through order-sheets on the file of divorce petition,
no such reflection appears that Presiding Officer has any biasness
towards applicant or favouring the non-applicant. This Court
deprecates such practice of applicant, to level baseless and
unfounded allegations against Presiding Officer just to make a
ground for transfer of divorce petition. Though, as per allegations
(3 of 3) [CTA-56/2020]
levelled by applicant, she may be held liable for contempt,
however, this Court is not inclined to take cognizance of same and
apologize the conduct of applicant, treating the same as bonafide
and deemed innocent or wrongly adviced.
5. Be that as it may, there is no justified reason to allow the
transfer application. Consequently, the transfer application stands
dismissed. The stay order dated 24.02.2021 staying proceedings
of divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Baran stands
vacated. The Family Court may proceed with the trial of divorce
petition in accordance with law after taking into consideration the
provisions of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
6. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /187
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
