Smt. Chandani Devi @ Suman Vs Amit Kmar

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21454

Court No. - 8

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 26 of 2025

Applicant :- Smt. Chandani Devi @ Suman Opposite Party :- Amit Kmar Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma,Sumer Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alka Verma,Tanay Hazari

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tanay Hazari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of Case No.3933 of 2024 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Amit Kumar Verma Vs. Smt. Chandani @ Suman) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow to the appropriate court in District Sitapur.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 20.04.2022. However, on account of matrimonial fall out, she was turned out from her matrimonial home and she is residing with her parents in District Sitapur.

¶9

It is further submitted that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 144 BNSS seeking maintenance, registered as Case No.4 of 2025, before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Sitapur. The petitioner has also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing Case No.20 of 2025 and it is stated that in both the cases, the respondent has not put in appearance nor any maintenance/interim maintenance has been awarded.

¶10

It is also urged that the respondent has initiated proceedings in Lucknow seeking divorce and in

¶11

absence of any robust family support system and lack of finances, the petitioner is unable to contest the proceedings effectively at Lucknow, hence the proceedings of Regular Suit No.3933 of 2024, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow be transferred to the appropriate Court at Sitapur.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent while refuting the aforesaid submissions has stated that mere lack of finances may not be a ground of transfer. It is further urged that the respondent is ready to pay the expenses to the petitioner for her travel to contest the proceedings at Lucknow.

¶13

It has also been urged that the respondent is working at Medanta Hospital at Lucknow and looking into the nature of his duties, it is not practical for the respondent to contest the proceedings at Sitapur. In the aforesaid circumstances, especially looking into the willingness of the respondent to pay for the travel expenses, it will be most apt for the case to be contested at Lucknow and for the said reason the transfer petition be dismissed. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 .

¶14

The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶15

What is not dispute is the fact that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 144 BNSS for maintenance and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In both the proceedings, the respondent has yet not put in appearance nor any interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

It is also not disputed that the distance between Sitapur and Lucknow is more than 100 kilometers. In the aforesaid circumstances, looking into the facts that apart from making an offer to pay there has been nothing on record to indicate that the respondent was offered or pay any maintenance to the petitioner nor he has put in

¶17

appearance in the proceedings pending at Sitapur.

¶18

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. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Anindita Das (supra) does not laid down any binding precedence especially in light of the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court which has been taken note of.

¶19

Taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by transferring Regular Suit No.3933 of 2024 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Amit Kumar Verma Vs. Smt. Chhandani @ Suman) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Sitapur. The Principal Judge, Family Court Sitapur upon receiving the records of Case No.3933 of 2024 shall consider and decide the matter alongwith the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 144 BNSS as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment preferably within a period of ten months from the date the copy of the order alongwith the record is placed before the court concerned.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Costs are made easy.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 ank

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Chandani Devi @ Suman v. Amit Kmar

Case brief

What is this about?

Smt. Chandani Devi @ Suman v. Amit Kmar

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

Dr. Mahalwar Education Trust Thru. Signatory Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Surya Narayan Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Bhardwaj Shiksha Sewa Samiti Thru. Authorized Signatory Vishal Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Technical Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Jyoti Prajapati @ Jyoti vs Amrish Prajapati

Smt. Chandani Devi @ Suman vs Amit Kmar

Head Constable (Civil Police) Sikandar Singh vs Shri Sanjay Prasad, Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.