Allowed

Neelu Reshu Jangid v. Abhishek Sharma

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2021CTA/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer application filed by the petitioner wife to move a pending matrimonial case from Jaipur to Jodhpur. The court found genuine grounds of inconvenience, lack of support, and safety apprehensions at the trial court location, exercising its discretion under Section 24 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Matrimonial Case No.1093/2020 transferred from Family Court No.1, Jaipur to Family Court, Jodhpur.

Neelu Reshu Jangid Vs Abhishek Sharma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 2/2021

¶3

Smt. Neelu @ Reshu Jangid W/o Abhishek Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, D/o Shri Rajkendra Kumar Jangid R/o Nand Kunj, Near Shiv Mandir, Suthla, Jodhpur,rajasthan-342003

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Abhishek Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, R/o Plot No. 60, Govindpuri, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Order

¶11

04/03/2021

¶12

This petition under Section 24 CPC has been filed by the applicant-wife for transfer of matrimonial case pending before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan to Family Court, Jodhpur.

¶13

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2015 at Jodhpur and the parties separated in July, 2020 since then the petitioner is residing at her parental home with parents at Jodhpur.

¶14

The respondent filed proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’) before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur alleging adultery against the petitioner.

¶15

Submissions have been made due to distance between Jodhpur and Jaipur, the petitioner has difficulty in attending the proceedings at Jaipur, inasmuch as, the petitioner does not have

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CTA-2/2021]

¶18

any relative residing at Jaipur where she can stay, in case she has to stay there during the night.

¶19

Further submissions have been made that as the petitioner is preparing for competitive examination, her frequent travelling to Jaipur would hamper her preparation. Averments have also been made that on account of threatening given by the respondent, the petitioner also fears for her safety, in case she travels to Jaipur for attending the hearings and therefore, the proceedings be transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur.

¶20

Reliance has been placed on Sanju v. Harinarayan : S.B.Civil Transfer Application No.29/2015, decided on 05.01.2018.

¶21

A response has been filed to the application. Learned counsel for the respondent emphasized that a notice Annex.R/1 was issued to the petitioner with the allegations, which forms the subject matter of the petition, which has not been responded. The courts at Jaipur have jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

¶22

Further submissions have been made that the allegations about safety of the petitioner are baseless, inasmuch as, the police can support her and that as the respondent was in the private job, on account of the pandemic, he lost his job and is presently dependent on his parents, therefore, transfer of the proceedings from Jaipur to Jodhpur would lead to his harassment.

¶23

Reference has been made to provisions of Section 21-A of the Act to indicate that the matter should proceed at Jaipur only.

¶24

Reliance has been placed on Smt. Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar v. Dr. Deviprakash Thakar : 1997(1) RLW (SC) 27.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CTA-2/2021]

¶28

The petition has been filed essentially indicating the difficulties to be faced by the petitioner in case, the case is tried at Jaipur based on inconvenience to the petitioner to travel to Jaipur, lack of any support at Jaipur and apprehension in relation to her safety at Jaipur.

¶29

Submissions have been denied and counter inconvenience on account of lack of job has been projected.

¶30

This Court in Smt. Vinita v. Himanshu : AIR 2017 Raj. 102 , inter-alia, laid down as under :-

¶31

“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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶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 the principles laid down in the case of Vinita

¶36

(supra), which judgment has been followed in the case of Sanju

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CTA-2/2021]

¶39

(supra), the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the proceedings from Jaipur to Jodhpur on account of her inconvenience and difficulties in attending the proceedings at Jaipur, which appears to be genuine.

¶40

So far as judgment in the case of Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar (supra) cited by learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband therein was a medical practitioner, whose absence would cause difficulty to his patients; his old mother, required frequent medical check-up and that the wife had some near relations in Bombay. The facts of the said case have no application to the present case.

¶41

The reliance placed on provision of Section 21-A of the Act has no application as the same deals with two separate petitions before two different courts.

¶42

In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Matrimonial Case No.1093/2020 (Abhishek Sharma Vs. Smt. Neelu @ Reshu Jangid) pending before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan is ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Jodhpur.

¶43

The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 07.04.2021.

¶44

The record be transmitted immediately by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur to Family Court, Jodhpur.

¶45

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶46

55-Rmathur/-

Neelu Reshu Jangid v. Abhishek Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelu Reshu Jangid v. Abhishek Sharma

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

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs Jugal Kishore and Ors.

Jagannath Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Shankar Shamra Vs the Secretary, Education Dept.

Ganga Ram Vs Mega Ram and Ors.

Usha Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Vela Vs Kanti