Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saroj Gupta vs Suresh Mahawar on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 92/2020
Saroj Gupta W/o Suresh Mahawar, Aged About 48 Years, D/o
Khushi Ram Gupta R/o Durga Colony, Hanumangarh Junction,
Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Mahawar S/o Satyapal Mahawar, Aged About 44 Years,
B/c Mahajan R/o Plot No. B-178, Surya Nagar, P.s. N.e.b., Alwar
(Raj.) At Present R/o Plot No. 86-A, Shree Ram Nagar, Opp. Neb,
Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Bansal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
18/02/2022
The present transfer petition has been filed by the
petitioner with the prayer that the Misc. Case No. 693/2019
pending before the Family Court, Alwar may be transferred to
Family court at Hanumangarh.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has
filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Alwar. It is submitted
that the petitioner is living at Hanumangarh and the respondent
has filed the said case only with a view to harass the petitioner. It
is submitted that being a lady having no source of income, it is
very difficult for her to travel to Alwar which is 600 km away from
(2 of 4) [CTA-92/2020]
her residential place at Hanumangarh, therefore, the Case No.
693/2019 may be transferred to Family court at Hanumangarh.
Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer
made by the petitioner and argued that the petitioner is residing
at Alwar in a rental home and not at Hanumangarh which is
evident from the fact that service of notice of divorce petition was
received by the petitioner at Alwar. Learned counsel for the
respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Santini Vs. Vijaya Venketesh reported in AIR
2017 SC 5745, Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam reported in
AIR 2017 SC 1345 and judgment of this Court in the case of Arun
Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Raj. & Anr (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
NO. 9053/2009) dated 23.03.2010.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has field an application
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 against the respondent before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The petitioner has also filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent
which is also pending before the Family Court, Hanumangarh.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @
Manmeet Laghmani Vs. Jitesh Kishore Tolani reported in 2010 (1)
WLC (SC) 705 has observed that in the matrimonial proceeding
instituted by the husband against the wife, the convenience of the
wife has to be considered in contesting the suit and accordingly,
the matrimonial proceedings ought to be transferred where the
wife was residing. So far as the judgment cited by the counsel for
the respondent in the case of Santhini (supra) is concerned, the
(3 of 4) [CTA-92/2020]
same relates to whether video conferencing should be allowed in
particular family dispute before Family Court. It was left upon the
discretion of the Family Court to direct hearing of the case through
video conferencing, when a joint application is filed or both the
parties file their respective consent memorandum for hearing of
the case through video conferencing. Thus, the said judgment
does not help the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Further in the judgment of Krishna Veni Nagam
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with a transfer petition
seeking transfer of a case under Section 13 of the Act of 1955
from one State to Family court of another State and it was
observed that the Court may issue certain directions which may
provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings. In the
present case, the respondent while filing reply to transfer petition
has stated that distance between Alwar city and Hanumangarh is
about 377 km, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it will be
more convenient for the respondent husband to contest the
proceedings at Family court, Hanumangarh rather than petitioner
wife travelling alone to Alwar. So far as the case of Arun Kumar
Gupta (supra) is concerned, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
decided the territorial jurisdiction of the case between Jaipur
Bench and Jodhpur Principal seat of Rajasthan High Court.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap
Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in AIR 2016 SC 3584
while allowing the appeal filed by wife, directed the case to be
transferred from Mumbai to Barshi which is 400 km away from
Mumbai. Recently, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Ekta Dhadhich vs. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (S.B. Civil Transfer
(4 of 4) [CTA-92/2020]
application NO. 72/2021) decided on 30.09.2021 directed the case
to be transferred from Ajmer to Family Court at Kota.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
reasons mentioned in the transfer petition, this petition is allowed.
It is ordered that the Misc. Case No. 693/2019 pending in Family
Court, Alwar titled as 'Suresh Mahawar Vs. Smt. Saroj Gupta' be
transferred to the Family court at Hanumangarh.
The Family Court, Alwar is directed to send the record of the
case to the Family court at Hanumangarh.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
116-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
