Dismissed

Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. Jagdish

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2018CTA/26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur rejected a transfer application under Section 24 CPC seeking to move a dissolution of marriage case from Family Court Udaipur to Rajsamand. The court found the distance inconvenient for neither party and noted no health issues necessitating a transfer.

What did the court decide?

The transfer application is rejected and the matter is to be kept at Rajsamand Family Court.

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs Jagdish — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 26 / 2016

¶3

Smt. Bhagwati Devi W/o Jagdish Chandra, D/o Deeparam, aged – 28 years, by caste – Regar, resident of – Bijnole, Tehsil & District Rajsamand, at present residing at Police Line Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jagdish Chandra S/o Lehru Lal, by caste – Regar, age – 29 years, resident of – Ghati, Tehsil & District Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Babel _____________________________________________________ JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶9

25/04/2018

¶10

The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for transferring the Case No.185/2015 titled as “Jagdish Chandra Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi” from Family Court, Udaipur to Family Court, Rajsamand.

¶11

Mr. Abhishek Charan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner narrating the facts in brief relevant to the present application, submitted that the petitioner contracted marriage with the respondent on 07.07.2007, as per Hindu customs and rituals and thereafter she got selected as a Constable in Police Department.

¶12

According to the assertion made by the petitioner, it was mutually agreed between them that the respondent would go and reside with her, wherever she is posted. However, respondent has refused to go with the petitioner, which is the genesis of the dispute between the couple. However, after the stress in

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CTA-26/2016]

¶15

matrimony, the petitioner started living with her parents at Udaipur.

¶16

Mr. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking transfer of the case contended that though Rajsamand is about 60 kms from Udaipur, however as the petitioner is serving in the Police Department as a Constable and having a minor son of 7 years, she finds it difficult to participate in the proceedings lodged for dissolution of Marriage, by the respondent under Section 13 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶17

Mr. Charan, informing that two cases filed by the petitioner, are already pending in the competent Courts at Udaipur, for which, it would be convenient for both the parties, if the present matter is also transferred to Family Court at Udaipur.

¶18

Mr. A.K. Babel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that looking to the distance and nature of vocation of the petitioner, neither she can say that the journey of 60 kms is daunting nor can she say that there is any threat perception. He added that the respondent is unemployed and is engaged in small vocation earning his livelihood by doing small work in Rajsamand and it would be rather difficult for him to attend the hearing at Udaipur, if the matter is transferred there.

¶19

Mr. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner cited an order dated 08.04.2013 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Petition No.49/2012 titled as “Smt. Ruchika Kanwar Vs. Praveen Singh” and contended that in the similar circumstances, this Court has transferred the matter from District Judge, Chittorgarh to Family Court, Bhilwara.

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CTA-26/2016]

¶22

Needless to observe that the orders passed in the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure are dependent upon the factual matrix of each case and one singular fact can affect the decision and description of the Court.

¶23

A perusal of the order dated 08.04.2013 cited by Mr. Charan reveals that the petitioner therein was suffering from health problems and her parents were old, considering which facts this Court had transferred the case. However there exists no such circumstances.

¶24

Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and examined the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be convenient for all the parties and in the interest of justice, if the matter is kept at Rajsamand only.

¶25

Looking to the distance of Rajsamand from Udaipur, it cannot be said that the journey to Rajsamand is inconvenient.

¶26

No case for transfer of the case is made out. The transfer application is rejected.

¶27

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶28

Upendra/7

Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. Jagdish

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 and Ors. Vs Ram Ratan

Smt. Ritika @ Renu Vs Mohit Sharma

Archna Meena Vs Ramesh Chand

Mainuddin Vs Gordhan and Ors.

Lrs of Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Lrs of Smt. Laxmi Devi and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Rsrtc and Anr.