Allowed

Maya Pathak v. Santosh Pathak

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2018Tr.Pet.CVL/21/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC to move an original suit from the Family Court, Bokaro, to the Family Court, Dhanbad, citing the petitioner's lack of independent income and hardship in engaging counsel at Bokaro.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Original Suit no. 36 of 2017 from Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad.

Maya Pathak Vs Santosh Pathak — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Civil) No.21 of 2017

¶2

Maya Pathak, wife of Santosh Pathak …… Petitioner Versus Santosh Pathak, son of Sri Vijay Kumar Pathak …… Opp. Party

¶3

¶4

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶5

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate

¶6

05 / Dated : 15th March 2018

¶7

1. This application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Original Suit no. 36 of 2017 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad.

¶8

2. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had instituted a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Bokaro. The opposite party had faced the trial and was convicted for the offence under Section 498-A. In course of argument, learned counsel has submitted that as per instruction received by him, negotiation for settlement of the dispute has been initiated between the parties. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have any independent source of income and does not have sufficient means to engage a counsel to prosecute the case at Bokaro.

¶9

On the above grounds, it is prayed to transfer the said suit to the court at Dhanbad.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed and submitted that the petitioner had prosecuted the criminal case under Section 498-A at Bokaro. This is suggestive of the fact that she is capable in prosecuting this case at Family Court, Bokaro and no valid ground is made out for transfer of the case.

¶11

5. Heard. Admittedly the petitioner does not have any independent source of income and is facing hardship in prosecuting the case at Bokaro by engaging counsel. Thus keeping in view the convenience of the

¶12

¶13

petitioner, it is deemed just and proper to transfer Original Suit no. 36 of 2017 from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to the court

¶14

of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad.

¶15

6. In the result, the petition is allowed.

¶16

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the courts below for needful.

¶17

(Amitav K. Gupta, J.)

¶18

NKC

Maya Pathak v. Santosh Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Pathak v. Santosh Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koushalya Devi Vs Shiv Kumar

Punam Bhagat Vs Avinash Jaiswal

Manju Sahu Manju Devi Vs Ratan Kumar Rateria

Kumari Rekha Vs Niraj Kumar Sawarnkar

Mamta Kumari Alias Mamta Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar Das

The Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway Vs Islam Ansari

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Koushalya Devi Vs Shiv Kumar

Punam Bhagat Vs Avinash Jaiswal

Manju Sahu  Manju Devi Vs Ratan Kumar Rateria

Kumari Rekha Vs Niraj Kumar Sawarnkar

Mamta Kumari Alias Mamta Devi Vs Sanjay Kumar Das

The Union of India through the General Manager Eastern Railway Vs Islam Ansari

Manju Sahu Manju Devi Vs Ratan Kumar Rateria