Allowed

Manisha v. Dinesh Kumar Rao

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2021CTA/49/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service transfer petition, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Family Court, Jodhpur, to Family Court, Bikaner. The court deemed it appropriate for the respondent to travel to Bikaner to alleviate the petitioner's financial burden, despite the respondent's service location.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings transferred to Family Court, Bikaner, with direction to remit record immediately and appearance fixed for 28.06.2021.

Manisha Vs Dinesh Kumar Rao — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 49/2020

¶3

Manisha W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Rao, Aged About 28 Years, D/o Shri Ramswaroop Gila, R/o Near Vishnoi Dharamshala, Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dinesh Kumar Rao S/o Shri Rameshwar Rao, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Railway Crossing Road, Bishnawas, Lohawat Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.R. Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.R. Choudhary

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶10

Order

¶11

19/03/2021

¶12

This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner - wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings pending before Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, to Family Court, Bikaner.

¶13

It is inter alia submitted in the application that respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’), before Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

¶14

The petitioner after being thrown out of the matrimonial house is presently residing at Bikaner and it is difficult for her to visit Jodhpur on each date and the same is expensive also, which she can ill afford.

¶15

Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent inter alia indicating that he is serving at Bhinmal (Jalore) and in case the proceedings are transferred from Jodhpur to Bikaner, instead

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CTA-49/2020]

¶18

of travelling for 200 Kms., he would be required to travel for 450 Kms. and, therefore, the application be dismissed.

¶19

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

¶20

It is not in dispute that the respondent in any case has to travel from his place of service to Jodhpur for attending the date of hearing and the petitioner also is required to travel from Bikaner to Jodhpur, in the circumstances instead of both the parties travelling for attending hearing, it would be appropriate for the respondent to travel to Bikaner.

¶21

In view thereof, the application is allowed. The proceedings Civil Case No. 954/2019 pending before Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, are ordered to be transferred to Family Court, Bikaner.

¶22

The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Bikaner, on 28.06.2021, which is said to be the date presently fixed before Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

¶23

Family Court No.1, Jodhpur, is directed to remit the record immediately.

¶24

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶25

29-Sachin/-

Manisha v. Dinesh Kumar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha v. Dinesh Kumar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Singh Vs Gurdev Singh

Ravi Khurana Vs Mallu Ram Swami

Bajrang Lal Vs Babu Lal

Jethmal Vs Pannadevi and Ors.

Lrs of Kashi Ram Vs Mallu Ram

Rajmal Bafna Vs Jitendra Singh