Allowed

Priya Malviya v. Avinash Kumar Vajpayee

Jharkhand HC12 Jun 2020Tr.Pet.CVL/66/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife transferred Original Suit No. 92 of 2019 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights from Saraikela Family Court to Bokaro Family Court to avoid inconvenience and expense, given she lives at Bokaro with no independent income.

What did the court decide?

The Original Suit No. 92 of 2019 instituted for Restitution of Conjugal Rights is transferred from the Family Court, Saraikela to the Family Court, Bokaro.

Priya Malviya Vs Avinash Kumar Vajpayee — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 2019

¶2

Priya Malviya --- --- Petitioner Versus Avinash Kumar Vajpayee ---Opposite party

¶3

¶4

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Through: Video Conferencing --For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Pratush Lala, Advocate

¶5

¶6

06/12.06.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Pratush Lala learned counsel for the opposite party-husband through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Petitioner–wife has sought transfer of Original Suit No. 92 of 2019 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saraikela to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro. The suit has been instituted by the husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady living with her parents at Bokaro with no independent sources of income. Because of ill-treatment, she had to leave the matrimonial home and also a job from s chool at Gamhariya. Petitioner has also filed a criminal case under Section 498A of I.P.C and other allied sections at Bokaro being Mahila P.S. Case No. 18 of 2019 against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Petitioner would have serious inconvenience and cannot afford the expenses to attend the proceedings at Saraikela. Petitioner has also made statements on the merits of the suit though they are not germane for consideration of a plea of transfer of the matrimonial suit.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party-husband has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that husband has in all fairness sought resumption of conjugal rights by instituting a suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, but the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassing him by filing a criminal case resisting resumption of matrimonial ties. It would also be onerous for the husband to attend the proceedings at Bokaro when the case is transferred there.

¶10

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances above, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the Original Suit No. 92 of 2019

¶11

¶12

instituted by husband for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is transferred from learned Family Court, Saraikela to learned Family Court, Bokaro since petitioner is likely to suffer serious inconvenience and it would be rather expensive for her to attend the proceedings at Saraikela. Let Original Suit No. 92 of 2019 be transferred from the learned Family Court, Saraikela to learned Family Court, Bokaro.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed.

¶14

( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶15

jk/

Priya Malviya v. Avinash Kumar Vajpayee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Malviya v. Avinash Kumar Vajpayee

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

Tumpa Kumari Vs Naresh Kumar Mahato

Kajal Devi Vs Arvind Nayak

Bandana Mishra Vs Abhimanyu Kumar

Dropadi Devi alias Draupadi Kumari alias Draupadi Devi Vs Ashok Kumar Baraik

Pranity Kumari Singh Vs Vivek Singh

Seema Kumari Alias Seema Agarwal Vs Mrityunjay Kedia