Allowed

Smt. Neelam Bhatia v. Mangilal

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2017CRW/12/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition was allowed to modify an earlier order dismissing a transfer application. The High Court, noting a State Government notification extending Family Court jurisdiction to matrimonial matters, ordered the transfer of a civil case pending before an Additional District Judge to the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Misc. Case No.28/2015 pending before Additional District Judge, Phalodi ordered to be transferred to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan

Smt. Neelam Bhatia Vs Mangilal — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Review No. 12 / 2017

¶3

Smt. Neelam Bhatia W/o Mangi Lal, By Caste Meghwal, Resident of Village & Post Bithri, Tehsil Phalodi District Jodhpur. At Present U.G. Girls Hostel, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mangi Lal S/o Parma Ram, By Caste Meghwal, Resident of Village & Post Bithri, Tehsil Pahlodi District Jodhpur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Ramesh Panwar

¶9

For Respondent(s) : -

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Judgment

¶12

05/09/2017

¶13

The petitioner has filed this Review Petition with the contention that she prayed for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.28/2015 (69/2014) pending before Additional District Judge, Phalodi to the Family Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan. In the Transfer Application it was stated that the petitioner filed an application under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan but under administrative directions, the case was assigned to the court of Additional District Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶14

On 26.07.2017, counsel for the petitioner produced a notification dated 01.06.2016 whereby State Government extended jurisdiction of Family Courts to the jurisdiction previously conferred to District Courts in matrimonial matters and

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRW-12/2017]

¶17

consequently, abolished such jurisdiction from the District Courts. In view of this notification dated 01.06.2016, it was contended that the court of ADJ, Phalodi has no jurisdiction to hear the matrimonial matter i.e. application filed by petitioner under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same may be transferred to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. However, in the order dated 26.07.2017, the Transfer Petition was stated to be dismissed as infructuous after quoting above notification.

¶18

Perused the Transfer Application in light of submissions made by the petitioner vis-a-vis notification dated 01.06.2016. Having considered the matter, the Review Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶19

The operative portion of the order dated 26.07.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Transfer Petition No.65/2016 (Smt Neelam Bhatia v. Mangi Lal) is modified in following terms:

¶20

In view of this, the Transfer Application is allowed and Civil Misc. Case No.28/2015 (69/2014) (Smt Neelam v. Mangi Lal), pending before Additional District Judge, Phalodi is ordered to be transferred to Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan .

¶21

The Review Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

¶23

mma/46

Smt. Neelam Bhatia v. Mangilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelam Bhatia v. Mangilal

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

Dr. a. K. Chittora Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. G. S. Bhardwaj Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Dr. Sudha Mathur Vs Somnath Mishra and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Vs Rashid Ali

Manjeet Singh Vs State

State Vs Shantilal