Allowed

Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi v. Mohit Tiwari

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a transfer application under Section 24 CPC to move a matrimonial case from Gonda to Faizabad (now Ayodhya). The transfer was ordered considering the applicant's residence in Lucknow, her safety concerns, and the convenience standard established by the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

The case file be transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gonda to the competent Court of District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) within four weeks.

Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi Vs Mohit Tiwari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12180

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 70 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi Opposite Party :- Mohit Tiwari Counsel for Applicant :- Badrish Kumar Tripathi,Awnish Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Gupta,Prashant Vikram Singh,Vinod Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶8

Instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed praying for transfer of Case No.760 of 2022 in re: Mohit Tiwari vs. Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi, filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gonda to the competent court at Lucknow.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is residing in Lucknow and as a lady, it would be very difficult for her to attend the proceedings in Gonda. 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.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit more particularly in paragraph 9, argues that the father of the applicant, a Police Constable is living in Alambagh, Lucknow and is continuously threatening the respondenthusband for life consequences and as such the case may be transferred to some other district near to District Lucknow.

¶11

To the aforesaid prayer of learned counsel for respondent learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.

¶12

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion as well as the 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, and also keeping in view the agreement of learned counsel for the applicant that the case be transferred to district Faizabad (now Ayodhya), present application is allowed.

¶13

Let the Case No.760 of 2022 in re: Mohit Tiwari vs. Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi, filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gonda be transferred to the competent Court of District Faizabad (now Ayodhya), in accordance with law, within four weeks.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.2.2024

¶15

A. Katiyar

¶16

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

Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi v. Mohit Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aastha Mishra @ Ruchi v. Mohit Tiwari

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

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Housing Commissioner Vs Mohammad Nasir and 3 Others

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 7 Others

Mohammad Umar Warsi Vs Sitwat Jameel and Others

Haider Raza Vs District Judge / Rent Tribunal Ambedkar Nagar and 5 Others

Commissioner Commercial Tax,U.P., Lucknow Vs M/S Ansar Yuvak Hathkargha Vastra Utpadan Samiti,Khairabad,Sitapur

Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and 3 Others