Dismissed

Smt. Sonika Mishra @ Sonika Shukla v. Ashish Mishra

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer application under CPC Section 24 for expediting a long-pending matrimonial suit was rejected. The court found the applicant guilty of concealing previous dismissed applications and subjected to cost in lower court. Considering her status as a separated wife, the application was dismissed without further cost.

What did the court decide?

Transfer application dismissed. No cost imposed on applicant.

Smt. Sonika Mishra @ Sonika Shukla Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57813

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 170 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Sonika Mishra @ Sonika Shukla Opposite Party :- Ashish Mishra Counsel for Applicant :- Saleem Ahmad Khan,Mohd.Saulat Wasim

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saleem Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has sought transfer of Case No.1733 of 2014: Ashish Vs. Sonika, filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and Misc.Case No.32-C of 2016: Sonika Vs. Ashish Kumar to any other court from the court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, Family Court, Lucknow.

¶7

The petitioner had filed the application for transfer of the case before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which has been rejected by means an order dated 22.07.2024, wherein it is recorded that the petitioner has sought transfer of the case on the ground that she has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the suit which has wrongly been rejected by the court by means of an order dated 22.05.2023 and, therefore, she has no hope of success in the court where the case is pending. Further contention of the petitioner was that the objection against Misc. Case No.32-C of 2016 was filed after five years but when she sought time for filing a rejoinder affidavit the court said that there was immense pressure and additional time could not be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner expressed apprehension that the court was under pressure of one Sri

¶8

Sanjay working in the Secretariat.

¶9

The opposite party had filed objection against the transfer application stating that it was the third transfer application filed by the applicant and her two previous applications had been rejected. She had filed transfer application even before this court which was numbered as Transfer Application No.15 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn by means of an order dated 01.02.2024. Thereafter, the applicant filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that too was dismissed as withdrawn by means of an order dated 05.03.2024. The applicant is creating hurdles in decision of the case which is pending for the past one decade. The Family Court called for a report from the Presiding Officer of the concerned court and the Presiding Officer has reported that in whichever case the learned counsel for the applicant appears, he creates hurdles in the proceeding. The Presiding Officer further informed that the case is pending since the year 2014 and it is listed amongst the cases regarding which an action plan has been made for expeditious disposal of the matter and a report regarding such cases is required to be submitted to the Hon'ble High Court. The Presiding Officer has further stated that the counsel for the applicant is creating hurdles in disposal of the old case but still in case the matter is transferred to some other court he would not have any objection against it.

¶10

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the learned Principal Judge, Family court rejected the transfer application by means of an order dated 22.07.2024 by imposing a cost of Rs.2500/-.

¶11

In the transfer application filed before this court the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the transfer application filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, but he has not stated anything about involvement of one Sanjay working in the Secretariat by putting pressure on the Presiding Officer of the Court, from which it appears that the aforesaid allegation was levelled before the Family Court in a reckless and malicious manner. The only allegation levelled in the application filed before this court is that the Presiding Officer of the Court had rejected the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in a wrongful manner and that from the efforts of the Presiding Officer of the court to proceed with the suit expeditiously, it appears that the Presiding Officer of the Court is acting hand in gloves with the opposite party and she wants to decide the suit at the earliest.

¶12

There is no mention in the entire application regarding the previous applications for transfer of the case filed by the applicant before the Principal Judge, Family Court as well as before this court and, therefore, the applicant is guilty of concealment of relevant and material facts. When a suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party is pending for the past ten years the Presiding Officer of the court is rightly trying to dispose of the same at the earliest. The report submitted by the Presiding Officer of the Court to the Principal Judge, Family Court stating that she is making efforts for early disposal of the case because this case is included amongst the old cases for which an action plan has been prepared for their early disposal and report regarding which is required to be sent to the High Court, justifies

¶13

the efforts being made by the Presiding Officer of the court for early disposal of the suit. The statement of the Presiding Officer in the report submitted to the Principal Judge that she has no objection in case the case is transferred to some other court, indicates that the Presiding Officer has no interest in disposal of the case and she is deciding the same in an impartial manner. The applicant has filed the instant transfer application concealing the fact of dismissal of earlier application to create unwarranted hurdles in expeditious disposal of the suit and in these circumstances the filing of this transfer application amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law.

¶14

Considering the fact that the applicant has concealed the fact of filing of earlier transfer application and dismissal thereof and that the transfer application filed by her was rejected by the Family Court by imposing a cost of Rs.2500/-, it would not have been improper to impose cost on the applicant in this case, but considering the fact that the applicant is a lady who is living separate from her husband since long, this court is taking a lenient view and is refraining from imposing any cost upon the applicant while dismissing her application.

¶15

Therefore, the transfer application is dismissed without imposing any cost on the applicant.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Ram.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sonika Mishra @ Sonika Shukla v. Ashish Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonika Mishra @ Sonika Shukla v. Ashish Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Hamraaz Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rashid Siddique Vs the State of U.P. and Anr.

Kailash Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs Stat of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ascent Education Trust,Kanpur Thru. Chairman Mr. Gurusharan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 2 Others

Avadhaesh Kumar and Others Vs Ghanshyam Mishra