Allowed

Archna Meena v. Ramesh Chand

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2018CTA/32/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court (Rajasthan) allowed an application under Section 24 CPC transferring matrimonial case proceedings from Family Court Sawai Madhopur to Family Court Bikaner. Transfer was ordered due to distance, petitioner's dependency on parents, and convenience of parties.

What did the court decide?

Case No.6/2016 transferred from Family Court, Sawai Madhopur to Family Court, Bikaner; parties directed to appear on 21.05.2018.

Archna Meena Vs Ramesh Chand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 32 / 2017

¶3

Archna Meena D/o Shri Tulsiram Meena, W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Meena, by Caste Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Resident of C-75, Gandhi Colony, Karni Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Late Shri Bhouri Lal Meena, by Caste Meena, Resident of Gram Kundali River, Tehsil Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

24/04/2018

¶13

The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for transferring the Case No.6/2016 titled as “Ramesh Chand Vs. Archna Meena” from Family Court, Sawai Madhopur to Family Court, Bikaner.

¶14

Mr. M.S. Purohit, 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 17.06.2009, as per Hindu customs and rituals thereafter started living with her husband at Sawai Madhopur.

¶15

However, after some time their matrimonial relationship got disturbed, for which, she had come back to Bikaner for living with her parents.

¶16

The respondent – husband has filed a petition for dissolution

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CTA-32/2017]

¶19

of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce, which is pending at Family Court, Sawai Madhopur.

¶20

Pointing out predicament of the petitioner, Mr. Purohit submitted that Sawai Madhopur is at far eastern end of the State and the petitioner has to travel about 500 km to participate in the proceedings under consideration. He submitted that the journey to Sawai Madhopur takes a long time and the petitioner requires a male companion to attend the hearing. Such journey is tedious; trouble-some and costly for the petitioner, who is dependent upon her parents living at Bikaner. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent, is a teacher presently posted at Shergarh, which is about 260 kms from Bikaner and it would be convenient, even for the respondent to contest the case at Bikaner, instead of Sawai Madhopur.

¶21

Mr. Manvendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that earlier the respondent had filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which had been decreed by Family Court, Sawai Madhopur and the petitioner had not raised any objection during the proceedings aforesaid. He added that the petitioner cannot raise any grievance or grudge in the present case filed by the respondent at Family Court, Sawai Madhopur.

¶22

In rejoinder, Mr. Purohit, pointed out that even during the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner – wife on the date of passing of the order, which shows that the petitioner could not represent her case properly before the Family Court at Sawai

(3 of 4)

[CTA-32/2017]

Madhopur.

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 that the present case is transferred to Bikaner.

¶27

My aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Vinita Vs. Himanshu, reported in AIR 2017 Raj 102, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶28

“It is, therefore, felt imperative to examine and explore the necessary principles governing transfer applications, filed by families, entangled in forensic fights, while invoking powers conferred upon this Court by Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶29

According to this Court, the provisions of Section 24 of the Code provides a great deal of discretion in the court, however, such discretion is required to be exercised on the basis of sound principles. It is true that the discretionary power, more particularly, the jurisdiction in relation to transfer of cases, can not be imprisoned or bound within a straight jacket or castiron formula, uniformly applicable to all situations, yet the courts are required to be mindful of the fact that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

¶30

Keeping in mind the provisions and mandate of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, various judicial pronouncements have laid down broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer of a case. Generally speaking, they are, balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience arising out of

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CTA-32/2017]

¶33

a particular place of trial, having regard to the nature of evidence or the points involved in the case; issues raised by the parties; and, reasonable apprehension in the mind of a litigant that he might not get justice in the court, where the proceedings are pending, or reasonable apprehension of failure of justice on the basis of a proven bias. These few factors are some of the aspects, germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings.

¶34

It may be true that distance alone may not be decisive factor but it has its own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Convenience itself is a vital factor, to be reckoned while deciding a Transfer Petition.”

¶35

In view of aforesaid, the application at hand is allowed and the Case No.6/2016 titled as “Ramesh Chand Vs. Archna Meena” is withdrawn from Family Court, Sawai Madhopur and transferred to Family Court, Bikaner.

¶36

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Bikaner on 21.05.2018. The counsel shall inform their respective parties about the next date before the transferee Court.

¶37

A copy of this order be sent to Family Court, Sawai Madhopur and Family Court, Bikaner, for facilitating transmission of record.

¶38

Application is allowed.

¶39

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶40

Upendra/20

Archna Meena v. Ramesh Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archna Meena v. Ramesh Chand

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

Smt. Minakshi Rao Vs Stayendra Singh Rao

The Minig Engineer, Mines and Anr. Vs Smt. Gayatri Devi and Anr.

Sohan Lal Vs the Mining Engineer, Mines and Ors.

Ajmer .v.v.N. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Nathu Lal and Ors.

State and Ors. Vs Ram Ratan

Smt. Ritika @ Renu Vs Mohit Sharma