Allowed¶21

Smt. Pooja Agrawal v. Shri Manish Kumar

Allahabad HC8 May 2025TACL/71/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Application Section 24 CPC allowed; wife's transfer petition liberal consideration, preference precedence; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act Petition 787 of 2024 transferred Family Court Ayodhya to Gorakhpur; Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 DV Act 2005 proceedings at Gorakhpur; respondent non-appearance, no maintenance paid; reliance on Leena Mukherjee, Pratibha Khemka, Neelam Kanwar, N.C.V. Aishwarya; Jaspreet Singh J.; costs easy.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Petition No. 787 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur; Ayodhya to transmit the record forthwith; transferee court to decide expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments; costs made easy. ¶21

Smt. Pooja Agrawal Vs Shri Manish Kumar — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Petition No. 787 of 2024) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya should be transferred to the appropriate court at District Gorakhpur.

¶20

Court's answer

Adopting the dictum of the Apex Court relied upon, a transfer petition at the behest of the wife in matrimonial litigation is to be considered liberally and her preference given precedence.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

It is undisputed that the petitioner initiated Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 Domestic Violence Act proceedings in District Gorakhpur, in which the respondent has not appeared and has paid no maintenance.

¶16

Key takeaways

The proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Petition No. 787 of 2024) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya stand transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, who shall take up the matter on receipt of the record transmitted forthwith and endeavour to decide it affording full opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably expeditiously.ratio¶20
The transfer application is allowed; costs are made easy.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Wife's Transfer Application (CIVIL) No. 71 of 2025 under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition, Petition No. 787 of 2024 (Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Pooja Agarwal), from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to Gorakhpur is allowed. Noticing the Apex Court dicta in Leena Mukherjee (2002) 10 SCC 480, Pratibha Khemka (2004) 13 SCC 686, Neelam Kanwar (2000) 1 SCC 589 and N.C.V. Aishwarya (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) that a wife's transfer petition in matrimonial litigation must be considered liberally with her preference given precedence, and noting that the respondent had not appeared in the petitioner's Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 DV Act proceedings at Gorakhpur nor paid any maintenance, Jaspreet Singh, J. ordered the transfer; the Ayodhya court was directed to transmit the record forthwith and the transferee court to decide the matter expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. Costs made easy.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26919

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 71 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Pooja Agrawal Opposite Party :- Shri Manish Kumar Counsel for Applicant :- Abhijeet Singh,Abeer Mishr

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shreyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

Shri Agarwal, at the very outset, submits that he has uploaded a copy of the counter affidavit after serving a copy thereof on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file any response thereto and the matter can be heard finally. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition has been heard. Be that as it may, the office shall upload the counter affidavit today.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of case bearing Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 08.06.2006. The married life of the petitioner and the respondent went through a roller-coaster ride except for initial five to six months. The petitioner is blessed with two children, but there is no proper discharge of responsibility or obligations by the respondent, either towards the petitioner or her two children. The matter escalated to the extent that the petitioner was turned out from her matrimonial home in the year 2020 with her two children and since then she is residing with her parents in District Gorakhpur.

¶10

It is also urged that the petitioner has instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as well as a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶11

It is also stated that though the respondent has been served in both the proceedings i.e. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under

¶12

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, yet the respondent has not put in appearance. It is also urged that no maintenance has been paid by the respondent either to the petitioner or to her two children. In such circumstances, the petitioner is unable to contest the proceedings effectively in District Ayodhya. Hence, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act be transferred to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur.

¶13

Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has refuted the aforesaid submissions and has stated that the instant petition came to be filed on 03.03.2025 whereas the order in proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Ayodhya wherein the date was fixed for 04.03.2025. It is stated that the petitioner travelled from Gorakhpur to Lucknow to swear an affidavit in the instant petition, but on the very next day, she did not appear in the proceedings in the Family Court and the matter has proceeded ex-parte. It is, thus, urged that the instant petition has not been filed with bonafide as such the prayer sought by the petitioner be declined.

¶14

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

¶15

Apparently, there is a matrimonial fall out and the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is engaging the attention of the Principal Judge, Family Court in District Ayodhya.

¶16

It is also not disputed that the petitioner has initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in District Gorakhpur. Admittedly, the respondent has not put in appearance in the said proceedings in District Gorakhpur. Neither he has paid any maintenance to the petitioner.

¶17

To suggest that the petitioner had travelled from Gorakhpur to Lucknow and not putting her appearance in the proceedings before the Family Court in District Ayodhya may not have much relevance to the controversy wherein this Court is required to consider whether the proceedings which are pending in District Ayodhya can be transferred to the appropriate Court in District Gorakhpur.

¶18

In this regard, this Court noticing the dictum of the Apex Court in Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee ( 2002) 10 SCC 480; Pratibha Khemka v. Sanjay Kumar Khemka (2004) 13 SCC 686; Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh

¶19

Kanwar, (2000) 1 SCC 589 and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, 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 also noticing her preference be given precedence.

¶20

Consequently, the only issue before this Court is regarding the transfer of the proceedings and in the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it will be appropriate that the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya bearing Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya shall forthwith transmit the record of the Petition No.787 of 2024 (Shri Manish Kumar Agarwal v. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) to the transferee court at Gorakhpur, who shall upon receipt of the record as well as order passed by this Court shall take up the matter and an endeavour be made to decide the same after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rakesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pooja Agrawal v. Shri Manish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pooja Agrawal v. Shri Manish Kumar

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

Mahant Janardan Das Chela Late Mahant Ram Bachan Das Vs Mahant Sia Ram Das Alleged Chela of Mahant Ayodhia Das

Sanu Singh Vs Veerendra Kumar Pushkar and Anr.

Nidhi Lata Vs Shri Pramod Nigam

Dhirendra Singh and 2 Others Vs Smt. Chitra Singh and 2 Others

C/M, Kisan Inter College, Lakhimpur Kheri Thru. Manager, Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy., Secondary Education, Lko and Another

Shraddha Varma Vs Lalit Kumar