Allowed

Smt.Anita Sahu v. Rajesh Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2007TPC/1/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by an applicant wife requesting the transfer of a pending civil suit under the Hindu Marriage Act from Kanker to Raipur. The Court held that her lack of independent income, dependency on parents, and need to support a minor child constituted relevant grounds for transfer, overriding the respondent's objection.

What did the court decide?

Civil Suit No. 29-N2006 pending before the District Judge, Kanker is transferred to the Court of District Judge, Raipur.

Smt.Anita Sahu Vs Rajesh Sahu — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2007)

¶1

¢ 1 i l \ E § I x ~ I i éILAswR I ;^{HIeHcoum‘OF¢HHA=mseARH} r “: Aged ~PETITIONER SIM.^Anitasailu W/o Wk^Sohu abou-l'²² yearls D/o Dwamku^Sahu R/o Tehsll-Abhanpur Srriapam (Nqyapam) ’ Dismcf-Rmpun (C^$) Versus r : ' Rqjesh^Sahu 5/0^Mohonsahu Ag¢d^abour RESPONDENT 24 years R/o DudFmadI Coiony, {maker Dnsfmct-Knnker^C6 ,

¶2

ik‘

¶3

Present: ‘ Shri'Sa‘yendra^{Sahu,learnedcounselfor thepetitioner} Shti B.R.Ghosh,^{legmedcounselwuthShrisomKantVerma} counsel^for ‘lhe respondent. _ r ORALORDER (Passed^{on14‘“March2007)} V The followmg^{oralorderof the Court waspassedbyDlllp Raosaheb} V ‘ Deshmukh^J

¶4

Heard . this. Transfer 2., At the request of learned counsel "^forthe parlies, 'o'f finally af the stage of admission. Petition (civil)^{isbeingdisposed} . 3. Admittedly, the appircant $mt Anita Sahu resides at Srtlapara Tehsll-Abhanpur,^{DistrictRalpur(CG)andCIVIISuitNo29-_} (Nayapara) N2006^med under Section 13(a) of Hindu Marriage Act ls pending ‘ between^the parties^{beforetheDistrictJudge,Kanker} ls that^{shehasnoindepenwnt} 4. The case^{oftheapplicantherein} - She is^llvmgwrthher source of^{incomeandhasaminorchildtosupport} parents^and lt would be ememety^{lnoonvenientforhertoagendthe} hearings^atKanker It Is, therefore, prayed^{thatCivrlSurtNo29-NZOI6} V pending^beforethe District Judge Kanker^{be/transferredtotheDistrit} c

¶5

, J

¶6

Judge' Raipur‘ Reluance was placed on Neelam Prawn Slngh / Bhadori a Vs Pravin Sin h Ramakant Bhadon reported In 2006(2) ANJ (SC) (NOC) 137 and Sumita Sin ' ‘ h Vs. Kumar San'a and another ’ repoited in zoaz-AIR-sc-sss. V ‘ i 6 5. 0n the other hand Shn BRGhosh learned counsel for the I^respondent argued that the appiicant-Wife is already tecewmg maintenance from the husband and the Ciwl uit No 29-N2006 should not be transferred merely to suit the convenience of the Wife

¶7

VA‘

¶8

Havmg heard nval contentions

¶9

I am of the consrdered opinion that the petmon deserves to be allowed 7. \ It is the case of the petitioner that she Is .tl ‘has vmg wrth her parents and a small minor child to support at Sitiapara (Nayapara), TeshsllAbhanpur District-Raipur (C G) During the course of arguments it was 'not disputed that the application for grant ofjmaintenanee tiled by the appllcant—Wlfe was also disposed of at Ralpur ),ln^{NeelamPravmSlngh} Bhadori a Vs Prawn Sin h Ramakant Bh on a (supra),^the fact that the apphcant~wxfe had a small child to support and that she had no Independent means of livelihood and was dependent on her parens were held to constitute relevant ' grounds while deciding an application for I transfer of the case In view of the diétum of the Apex Conn in Sumlta Smgh Vs Kumar Sanjay and another (supra) It is the Wifes convemence that must be looked at The circumstances Indicated above are sufficient to order transfer of the CMI Suit No 29-N2006 from Kanker to Raipur

¶10

‘ 8. Consequently, the petition Is allowed Ciwl Suit No 29-N2006 ‘ pending before the Couit of District Judge, Kan ker is transferred to the Court of District Judge, Raipur Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge Raipur on 09 05 2007 A copy of this order be sent to~tge District Judge at Kanker and Raipur M Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh i i ‘ Judge =. ,

Smt.Anita Sahu v. Rajesh Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Anita Sahu v. Rajesh Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh and Another Vs Seth Kirodimal Dharmada Trust and Others

United India Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs Munna Singh and Others

Suresh Singh Vs Vijay Kumar Sonale and Another

Smt Rashmit Kaur Vs Ashok Jeewan Lal Bansod and Others

P.Vijaya and Another Vs Mangal Jeet Singh and Others

Yuvraj Singh Vs Ganpat Ram Sahu and Another