Manorama Yadav @ Anjali Yadav Vs Alok Shankar

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29078

Court No. - 8

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 17 of 2025

Applicant :- Manorama Yadav @ Anjali Yadav Opposite Party :- Alok Shankar Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Hari Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 24 C.P.C. seeking transfer of Case No. 1351/2023(Alok Shankar Vs. Smt Manorama Yadav 2 Anjali Yadav) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing, pending before the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, District Raebareli to the appropriate court in District Prayagraj.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 05.06.2014 and from the said wedlock two children were born and both the children are residing with the petitioner. On account of mental torture the petitioner had left her matrimonial home along with her minor children and she is residing in Prayagraj.

¶9

4.The petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 144 B.N.S.S. for maintenance, wherein the notices have been issued to the respondent, however, he has not put in appearance. It is urged that the distance between Raebareli and Prayagraj is about 55 Kilometers and it is difficult for the petitioner to contest the proceedings at Raebareli along with her two minor children. She does not not have any robust family support, in the said circumstances, it is appropriate that the Suit for divorce pending before Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, District Raebareli be transferred to the appropriate court in District Prayagraj.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the aforesaid submissions primarily raising a ground that there are several criminal cases under grave sections, which are pending against the family members of the petitioner. It is also urged that the respondent was muscled by the relatives of the petitioner and he suffer grievous injuries, which resulted in a hearing loss, which could only be cured after long prolonged treatment. It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances it is not

¶11

appropriate that the said proceeding be transferred to Praragraj, as the respondent has threat on his life at the behest of the petitioner.

¶12

A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the respondent as to where the respondent is currently employed, it has been informed that the respondent is a Head Constable in the Police Service, State of U.P., posted at Raebareli.

¶13

The Court has learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶14

The Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in 2002 (10) SCC 480 , in the case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686 , in the case of Neelm Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589 and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial litigation, a transfer petition at the behest of the wife must be considered liberally and her preference be given precedence.

¶15

In the instant case, it is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner and her two minor children are residing at Prayagraj. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 144 B.N.S.S.. No maintenance has been provided to the petitioner and her children. On the other hand the respondent has initiated proceedings for divorce at Raebareli.

¶16

In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee (supra), Pratibha Khemka (supra), Neelm Kanwar (supra) and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by transferring Case No. 1351/2023(Alok Shankar Vs. Smt Manorama Yadav 2 Anjali Yadav) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing, pending before the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, District Raebareli to Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, who shall upon receipt of records of Case No. 1351/2023(Alok Shankar Vs. Smt Manorama Yadav 2 Anjali Yadav) as well as the order of this Court shall hear and decide the petition as well as the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 144 B.N.S.S. after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible, so that the proceedings can be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶17

It is also observed that though the respondent is gainfully employee with the Uttar Pradesh Police, nevertheless in case if he suffers or any such apprehension, it is open for him to take recourse as may be available to him.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.5.2025

¶20

Arvind

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manorama Yadav @ Anjali Yadav v. Alok Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorama Yadav @ Anjali Yadav v. Alok Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Charu Mishra vs Union of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Deptt.Thru. Its Prin. Secy. and 5 Others

Smt. Kalpana Patel and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Ramesh Chandra Shukla and 2 Ors. Vs Property of Late Smt. Sarla Devi and 2 Ors.

Gaursons Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Divyanshu Srivastava Vs Meenal Singh

Pramod Kumar Vs Sooraj Patwa and another

Manish Raj Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Education, New Delhi and 4 Others