Allowed

Anuradha Burnwal v. Mayank Raj

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2024Tr.Pet.CVL/24/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act suit from Dhanbad to Bokaro, citing her residence there and another pending case. The court allowed transfer, preferring the wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

Original Suit No.122 of 2023 transferred from Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro; record to be remitted immediately.

Anuradha Burnwal Vs Mayank Raj — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 24 of 2023

¶2

Anuradha Burnwal … … Petitioner Versus Mayank Raj … … Opp. Party

¶3

------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶4

-----For the Petitioner : Mrs. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Chainika, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate -----

¶5

05/ 01.03.2024 The instant transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of petitioner-wife seeking transfer of Original Suit No.122 of 2023 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the opposite party-husband from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad, to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is residing with his father at Bokaro and there is no any other family member to take care and one more case is also pending at Bokaro and as such for the ends of justice, this case may also be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that this case is at advance stage of hearing as such it may not be transferred.

¶8

It is well settled legal position that while going into the merits of a transfer application, Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants, and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships. In such type of matters, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶9

In view of the above discussion, the present transfer application filed by the petitioner-wife is allowed and case bearing Original Suit No.122 of 2023 , pending before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bokaro.

¶10

-2-

¶11

The Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No.II, Dhanbad is directed to remit the record of Original Suit No.122 of 2023, to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bokaro immediately. The parties shall appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bokaro on the date fixed.

¶12

Transfer Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶13

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶14

Rohit/-

Anuradha Burnwal v. Mayank Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Burnwal v. Mayank Raj

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

Ashok Ram and Ors. Vs Home Department

Jirwa Devi Vs Central Coalfields Limited Represented through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Ram Chandra Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Riddhi Goyal Vs Ritesh Mittal

Neha Tiwari Alias Neha Pathak Vs Sidharth Tiwari

Anjani Kumar Kashi Vs Nishant Kumar Sinha