Allowed

Smt.Shushila Devi v. Hemant Kumar

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2013CTA/62/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed transfer petition seeking move of proceedings under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act from Additional District Judge, Sojat City, to District Judge, Balotra, citing petitioner's difficulty due to distance and minor children.

What did the court decide?

Transfer allowed; Civil Misc. Case No.38/2012 pending before MACT Pali transferred to District Judge, Balotra; parties to appear on 06.05.2013.

Smt.Shushila Devi Vs Hemant Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL MISC. TRANSFER PETITION NO.62/2012 Smt. Shushila Devi

¶3

Vs.

¶4

Shri Hemant Kumar

¶5

Date of order :: 08.04.2013

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶7

Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Choudhary, for the respondent.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

This transfer petition under Section 24 CPC has been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sojat City (Pali) to the Court of District Judge, Balotra (Barmer).

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the First Information Report lodged by her, proceedings are pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Siwana and the petitioner has two minor children, who are studying at Siwana and it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Sojat City, which is about 150 kilometers and she has no source of income.

¶11

A reply to the transfer petition has been filed by the respondent-husband opposing prayer for transfer of the proceedings from Sojat City to Balotra. It is, inter alia, submitted that the averments made in the transfer petition are baseless.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In reply to the averments made in the transfer petition, the respondent has submitted that he is prepared to give expenses from going from Siwana to Sojat City and there will be no

¶14

¶15

inconvenience to her. Merely because the husband is prepared to bear the expenses of the travel of the wife from Balotra to Sojat City, it cannot be said that the inconvenience caused to her on account of leaving her two minor children and attending the Courts at Sojat City would be taken care of.

¶16

In that view of the matter, the transfer petition is allowed. The Civil Misc. Case No.38/2012 (Hemant Kumar Vs. Smt. Shushila Devi) pending before the Additional District Judge, Sojat City, which is now said to be pending before the Court of MACT, Pali is transferred to District Judge, Balotra. The parties would appear before the District Judge, Balotra on 06.05.2013. The record of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act shall be transferred by the Court of MACT, Pali to District Court, Balotra forthwith. The District Judge, Balotra may try to decide the proceedings expeditiously.

¶17

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶18

A.K. Chouhan/ 18

Smt.Shushila Devi v. Hemant Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Shushila Devi v. Hemant Kumar

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

Suresh Kumar Vs Dhirendra Kumar

Murli Manohar Vs Ramkishore and Ors.

Dheeraj Singh and Anr. Vs Mst. Renwati

Smt.Ruchika Kanwar Vs Praveen Singh

Smt.Kamla Devi and Ors. Vs Smt.Kamla and Ors.

Dilip Vs Mewar Anchliak Gramin Bank