Allowed

Smt Nidhi v. Manish

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2015CTA/59/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench allowed a transfer petition seeking to move a Section 13 matrimonial case from Family Court, Dausa to Family Court, Alwar. The court held that transferring the matter to Alwar served the petitioner's interest due to her alleged leg disability and residence with parents there, finding the balance of convenience in her favor.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Case No.43/2014 from Family Court, Dausa to Family Court, Alwar to be decided expeditiously within six months.

Smt Nidhi Vs Manish — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB Civil Transfer Petition No.59/ 2014 Smt. Nidhi Vs. Manish

¶4

Date of Order :: 19/ 01/ 2015

¶5

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE J.K. RANKA

¶6

Mr. Hament Gajraj, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for the respondent

¶7

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-

¶8

wife seeking transfer of Case No.43/2014, Manish Vs. Smt. Nidhi, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of

¶9

the Hindu Marriage Act, from Family Court, Dausa to Family Court, Alwar.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner,

¶11

being a lady and handicapped, even as per the claim of the respondent-husband, is not in a position to go to the Family Court, Dausa on each and every date fixed in the matter and on the contrary, the respondent-husband, being a male, hale and hearty, would be in a position to appear at Family Court, Alwar where the petitioner is residing with her parents. Counsel further submits that balance of convenience is required to be seen in such matters and in the case of the petitioner, it is in her favour and the petitioner, being a lady

¶12

¶13

and handicapped, normally would not be in a position to travel to Dausa with her old parents on the dates when the matter is listed before the Family Court, Dausa and on

¶14

account of illness of parents, she might have to go alone causing inconvenience. Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajni Kumari Vs. Raghvinder Sahay @ Lal Babu: 2009(1) WLC (SC) Civil 530 and Samita Bhattacharjee Vs. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee: 2008(1) WLC (SC) Civil 637 wherein it has been held that convenience in such matters is required to be seen.

¶15

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that there is no justification for this Court to transfer the case from Family Court, Dausa to Family Court, Alwar. He contends that the petitioner is working in a company and balance of convenience has not been proved at all by the petitioner to transfer the matter from Dausa to Alwar. He further contends that efforts have been made for reconciliation but somehow, the matter could not be reconciled. He further contends that an FIR has been lodged by the petitioner against the respondent on 03/01/2015 at Alwar after the mediation having been failed and that is to harass the respondent. He relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sushma Vs. Naveen Kumar:

¶16

¶17

2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 430.

¶18

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also perused the judgments cited

¶19

on their behalf.

¶20

In my view, it would be appropriate to allow the

¶21

instant transfer petition, filed at the instance of the petitioner-wife to transfer the case from Family Court, Dausa to Family Court, Alwar, primarily for the reason that the petitioner, being a lady, though might be working, is required to travel from Alwar to Dausa on various occasions. Even as per the claim of the respondent in the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is claimed that the petitioner has problem in her legs and she even cannot walk properly and looking to the facts and averments, made by the respondents in the petition, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of the petitioner that the matter is transferred from Dausa to Alwar. In my view, the balance of convenience, in the light of the judgments, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, is required to be seen and I notice and observe that balance of convenience is in her favour and it would be in the interest of the petitioner to appear at Family Court, Alwar as and when the matter is listed and the respondent, being a male, will have no difficulty in travelling from Dausa to Alwar, if the case is transferred.

¶22

¶23

Consequently, the instant transfer petition stands

¶24

allowed. The Case No.43/2014, Manish Vs. Smt. Nidhi filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu

¶25

Marriage Act in Family Court, Dausa is ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Alwar with the direction to

¶26

decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

¶27

Let the parties may appear before the Family

¶28

Court, Alwar on 05/02/2015 and thereafter, the Family Court,

¶29

Alwar would regulate the hearing.

¶30

(J.K. Ranka), J.

¶31

Raghu

¶32

Cer t i f i cat e: Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Raghu, Sr . PA.

Smt Nidhi v. Manish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nidhi v. Manish

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Ganesh Singh and Ors.

Puran Mal Sharma Vs Dholpur Telephone Karmchari Sahakari

Smt Bhawana Soni Vs Ashutosh Bhama

Sh Shanti Lal Prajapat Vs Sh Suresh Kumar Prajapat Ors.

Shri Rustam Vs Smt Radha Hemnani and Anr.

Smt Anita Vs Padam Kumar Jaliya