Allowed

Samiksha Dixit v. Anurag Dixit

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2024/14/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for transfer of a matrimonial suit from Raebareli to Fatehpur under Section 24 of CPC to spare the applicant-wife's convenience. The opposite party did not appear. The High Court allowed the application relying on Supreme Court precedents prioritizing the wife's convenience in matrimonial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Original Suit No.1014 of 2021 pending before Family Court, Raebareli transferred to Family Court at Fatehpur within four weeks.

Samiksha Dixit Vs Anurag Dixit — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20914

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 14 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Samiksha Dixit Opposite Party :- Anurag Dixit Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party despite service of notice.

¶8

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

¶9

Heard Shri Bipin Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

The instant application has been filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. praying for transfer of the case bearing Original Suit No.1014 of 2021; In re: Anurag Dixit Vs. Smt. Samiksha Dixit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli to District Court, Fatehpur.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant-wife and respondent had got married on 12.02.2018. Subsequent to the marriage, a girl was born, who is now aged about four years. Subsequent thereto, differences arose between the applicant and respondent with the result that the applicant is now residing at her native District- Fatehpur.

¶12

Subsequent thereto, the respondent has filed a case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Original Suit No.1014 of 2021, which is pending at Raebareli.

¶13

The Contention is that as the applicant is residing at Fatehpur as such it would be extremely difficult for her to do pairvi of the case filed by the respondent at Raebareli and thus it is prayed that the case may be transferred to the Fatehpur.

¶14

Reliance has been placed on the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Neelam Pathak Vs. Alok Kumar Bharti reported in (2004) 13 SCC 687 and Pratibha Khemka vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in (2004) 13 SCC 686 .

¶15

Nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. As such the Court has gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the applicantwife is now residing at Fatehpur, while the case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the respondent at Raebareli. The Apex Court in the cases of Neelam Pathak (supra) and Pratibha Khemka (supra) has held that the convenience of the lady should be kept in mind in matrimonial proceedings.

¶17

Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed .

¶18

Let the Original Suit No.1014 of 2021; In re: Anurag Dixit Vs. Smt. Samiksha Dixit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli be transferred to the Family Court at Fatehpur within four weeks, in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 Ashutosh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Samiksha Dixit v. Anurag Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samiksha Dixit v. Anurag Dixit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gopal Goyal Objection Filed Vs Commissioner Devi Patan and 2 Ors.

Ram Khelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare, Lucknow and 3 Others

Smt. Sheela @ Sheela Bhatt Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Tripti Pal Vs Principal Judge Family Court Barabanki

Managing Director U.P. Power Corp.Distribution Lko.and Ors. Vs Sri Hari Krishna and Anr.

Babu Lal and Others Vs Addl. District Judge Court No. 10 Unnao and Another