Allowed

Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta v. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed a transfer application moving a divorce suit from Lucknow to Kanpur. The transfer aims to reduce the applicant's financial burden as she has concurrent pending maintenance and DV cases in Kanpur, prioritizing her convenience.

What did the court decide?

Suit No.1245 of 2022 transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to District Kanpur Nagar within one month.

Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta Vs Principal Judge… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:478

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 215 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta Opposite Party :- Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Maurya,Raj Kumar Maurya

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Instant application has been filed praying for transfer of Suit No.1245 of 2022 in re: Seemant Rajvanshi vs. Ragini Singhal filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

This Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 had issued notice to respondent no.2. As per office report dated 13.12.2022, notice on respondent no.2 is deemed sufficient. However, as nobody responds on behalf of the respondent no.2, this Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.

¶10

Instant application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed for transfer of Suit No.1245 of 2022 in re: Seemant Rajvanshi vs. Ragini Singhal filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, on the grounds, as indicated in the application, that (a) the applicant has filed an application dated 31.08.2022 in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against respondent no.2 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, which has been registered as Case No.1752 of 2022 in re: Smt. Ragini Gupta alias Ragini Singhal vs. Seemant Rajvanshi, (b) the applicant has also filed a complaint dated 12.09.2022 in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against respondent no.2 and his family members which has been registered as Complaint Case No.3946 of 2022 and is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Kanpur Nagar, and (c) that the applicant is residing in Kanpur Nagar and it would be difficult for her to

¶11

pursue the case filed by respondent no.2 here at Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that as the aforesaid two cases are pending at District Kanpur Nagar as such going to attend the proceedings which have been initiated by the applicant's husband at Lucknow would cause immense financial burden on the applicant. Placing reliance on the judgments 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 , learned counsel for the applicant argues that the Apex Court has categorically laid down that the convenience of the lady should be kept in mind in matrimonial proceedings.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the records, the Court finds that the Suit No.1245 of 2022 filed by the husband of the applicant is pending at Lucknow whereas two cases filed by the applicant, as indicated above, are pending at District Kanpur Nagar. Despite notice having been served on the respondent no.2, no objections have been filed till date nor has anyone put in appearance on his behalf and as such it is apparent that the respondent no.2 has no objections to the prayer made in the instant application.

¶14

Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Neelam Pathak (supra) and Pratibha Khemka (supra) , wherein it has been held that the convenience of the lady should be kept in mind in matrimonial proceedings, the present application is allowed .

¶15

Let the Suit No.1245 of 2022 in re: Seemant Rajvanshi vs. Ragini Singhal be transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the competent Court of District Kanpur Nagar, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 A. Katiyar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta v. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragini Singhal @ Ragini Gupta v. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and Another

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

Similar cases

Smt. Deepti Srivastava Vs Saurabh Srivastava

Shiv Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. through Collector Unnao and Others

Deepsikha Singh Vs Abhishek Singh

Shyam Lal Govil Vs Suresh Chandra and Another

Bhagwan Din Vs S.D.O. Unnao and Others

Sarwagya Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Deptt., Lucknow and Others