Allowed

Smt. Minakshi Rao v. Stayendra Singh Rao

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2018CTA/73/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the transfer application under Section 24 CPC, moving a matrimonial case from Udaipur to Pratapgarh. The court held that the wife's convenience and the husband's pending litigation in Pratapgarh justified the transfer despite allegations of threat.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 24 CPC is allowed and Case No. 726/2016 is transferred from the Family Court, Udaipur to the Family Court, Pratapgarh.

Smt. Minakshi Rao Vs Stayendra Singh Rao — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 73 / 2017

¶3

Smt. Minakshi Rao W/o Shri Stayendra Singh, D/o Shri Devi Singh, (Hardyal Singh Rao), Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Rao, Resident of Village Dhalmu, Post Badatanda, Via Dhamotar, Tehsil & Distt. Pratpagarh, At Present Residing At Opposite Krishi Mandi Gate, Krishi Mandi Road, Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Shri Stayendra Singh Rao S/o Shri Ishwar Singh Rao, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Rao, Resident of Village Post Sagwadia, Tehsil Gadi, Distt. Banswara At Present Residing At House of Bansidas Vishnau 35, Shashtri Nagar, Ward No. 33, Khempura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Mankad

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Judgment

¶11

23/04/2018

¶12

The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for transferring the Case No.726/2016 titled as “Stayendra Singh Vs. Smt. Minakshi” from Family Court, Udaipur to Family Court, Pratapgarh.

¶13

Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner narrating the facts in brief relevant to the present

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

[CTA-73/2017]

¶16

application, submitted that the petitioner contracted marriage with the respondent on 08.05.2014, as per Hindu customs and rituals thereafter started living with her husband at Udaipur.

¶17

However, their matrimonial relationship could not go well, for which, she had come back her to native place Village Dhalmu, Post Badatanda, Via Dhamotar, Tehsil & Distt. Pratapgarh for living with her parents.

¶18

The respondent – husband has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On receipt of the notice, the infuriated petitioner filed three cases against the husband under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act in competent Courts of Pratapgarh and the same are pending.

¶19

Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Udaipur is about 170 kms from Pratapgarh and the petitioner finds it difficult to attend the hearings at Udaipur, as the journey takes three hours and she needs a companion. He submitted that the petitioner’s father is in private job, who is unable to accompany her, for which, she finds it daunting to defend her case at Udaipur.

¶20

Mr. R.S. Mankad, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner and her relatives have given threatening, for which, they were bound by the competent Court under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the respondent has threat perception, if the matter is transferred to Pratapgarh.

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CTA-73/2017]

¶23

Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the apprehension of the respondent – husband, for which, the petitioner’s relatives were bound down was only based upon alleged telephonic threat; which is not a proof of the danger of life and liberty.

¶24

This Court without giving any finding on such threat perception is of the opinion that the case cannot be refused to be transferred on such allegations/apprehensions.

¶25

In the present factual back-drop when the respondent – husband is defending three cases at Pratapgarh, it would be appropriate that the present case pending in Udaipur filed by the respondent – husband be also transferred to the Family Court, Pratapgarh.

¶26

This Court in case of Smt. Vinita Vs. Himanshu, reported in AIR 2017 Raj 102, while deciding a transfer application has held as under:-

¶27

“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.

¶28

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

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[CTA-73/2017]

¶31

the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection.

¶32

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 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.

¶33

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.”

¶34

In view of aforesaid, the application at hand is allowed and the Case No.726/2016 titled as “Stayendra Singh Vs. Smt. Minakshi” is withdrawn from Family Court, Udaipur and transferred to Family Court, Pratapgarh.

¶35

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Pratapgarh on 04.05.2018. The counsel shall inform their respective parties about the next date before the transferee Court.

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[CTA-73/2017]

¶38

A copy of this order be sent to Family Court, Udaipur and

¶39

Family Court, Pratapgarh, for facilitating transmission of record.

¶40

Application is allowed.

¶41

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

¶42

Upendra/21

Smt. Minakshi Rao v. Stayendra Singh Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Minakshi Rao v. Stayendra Singh Rao

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

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

Sohan Lal Vs the Mining Engineer, Mines and Ors.

Smt. Devi Vs Sanjeev Chaudhary and Anr.

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

State and Ors. Vs Ram Ratan

Smt. Ritika @ Renu Vs Mohit Sharma