Allowed

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu v. Rohitash Chandra Bhensle

Chhattisgarh HC5 Nov 2024TPC/154/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition to move a civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights from Balod to Bemetara. The court prioritized the wife's convenience due to harassment and travel difficulties, citing a Supreme Court precedent. Liberty was granted to the husband to attend virtually.

What did the court decide?

Civil Suit No.A/36/2024 transferred from Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Bemetara. Proceedings continued on 19.12.2024. Liberty granted to respondent for virtual appearance.

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu Vs… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:43068

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

T.P(C) No.154 of 2024

¶6

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu W/o Rohitash Chandra Bhensle, D/o Shri Daneshwar Sahu Aged About 31 Years At Present R/o Balaji Cooler, Ward No. 3, High School Road, Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Rohitash Chandra Bhensle S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Bhensle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Hasda, Post - Arkar, Police Station - Sanaud, Tahsil - Gurur, District - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Syed Imtiaz Ali, Advocate.

¶10

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.11.07 11:33:01 +0530

¶11

06.11.2024

¶12

The instant Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Petitioner/wife to transfer Civil Suit No.A/36/2024 from the Family Court, Balod to the Family Court, Bemetara.

¶13

2 / 4

¶14

Facts of the case are that both the parties were legally wedded to each other on 03.05.2023 and presently they are residing separately as the Respondent/husband has subjected the Petitioner/wife to harassment by demanding dowry and also ousted her from his house. The Petitioner/wife has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Bemetara, which is pending. Subsequently, the Respondent/husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Balod, which is pending before the said Court.

¶15

It is submitted by Shri Rajput that after marriage, the Petitioner/wife was harassed for demand of car in the form of dowry and as she was also threatened for life, therefore, she had to call her father with whom, she returned to her maternal home on 28.08.2023. He further submits that thereafter, in the month of March, she has filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Bemerata and after receipt of notice of the said case, the Respondent/husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He further submits that at the time of filing of the said application, the Respondent/husband was working at New Raipur, which was admitted by himself in the mediation proceedings conducted on 29.04.2024 and the Petitioner/wife is a non-working lady and cannot travel all along from Bemetara to Balod. He placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the matters of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 and Smt

¶16

3 / 4

¶17

Rama @ Revti Sahu vs. Uttam Kumar Sahu decided on 29.04.2024 in T.P.(C) No.98/2023 and submits that the said case may be transferred as prayed for.

¶18

On the contrary, Shri Ali opposes the prayer and submits that the Petitioner/wife has earlier also filed a similar nature of Transfer Petition on the same ground, which has been dismissed on 08.08.2024 with liberty to file afresh. He further submits that the Respondent/husband has been paying travelling and ancillary expenses to the Petitioner/wife and to demonstrate the same, copy of the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Family Court, Balod has been annexed herewith which shows that Rs.1,000/- was being paid to her. He placed reliance on Anindita Das vs. Srijjit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 and prays to dismiss the Petition.

¶19

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents carefully. 6. The marriage between the parties took place on 03.05.2023 and their relation turned bitter in such a short span of time as she was subjected to harassment for demand of a car as dowry and also faced threat for life due to which, she had to return to her maternal home on 28.08.2023 and she was also not paid maintenance though she is not earning, therefore, in such compelling circumstances, she has filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Bemetara and after receipt of the same, the Respondent/husband has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Balod. The Respondent/husband, who is a qualified person having

¶20

4 / 4

¶21

done his M.Tech, was working at New Raipur at the relevant time and it has been stated by him that the Petitioner/wife is also a highly qualified person and she is being paid the travelling expenses by him.

¶22

Having considered the submissions made and the entire backdrop of the case and further considering that in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 , it has been held that in such cases, the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of husband, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer Civil Suit No.A/36/2024 from the Family Court, Balod to the Family Court, Bemetara. Ordered accordingly. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Respondent/husband to move an appropriate application before the Family Court, Balod to participate in the proceedings through virtual mode, unless otherwise directed by the said Court. On such application being filed, the concerned Court shall consider the same positively. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court Bemetara on 19.12.2024 for further proceedings. The Family Court, Balod shall transfer the record to the Family Court, Bemetara immediately.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant Transfer Petition is allowed .

¶24

Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶25

Priya

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu v. Rohitash Chandra Bhensle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokita Bhensle @ Uttra Sahu @ Versha Sahu v. Rohitash Chandra Bhensle

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

M/s Mittal Investment Vs M/s Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd.

Smt. Hemlata Rajput Vs Rajendra Singh Rajput

Sarita Sahu Vs Ghanaram Sahu

Shivam Motors Private Limited Vs Yogesh Chand Newar

Food Corporation of India Vs Employee State Insurance Nigam

Vinay Singh Vs Pannalal