Petitioner sought transfer of Section 9 matrimonial proceedings from Jaipur to Bharatpur due to distance, minor children, and financial dependence, relying on gender justice and practical difficulties.
Transfer of proceedings from Family Court, Jaipur Metropolitan to Family Court, Bharatpur.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 20212019
Smt. Brijesh Kumari W/o Shri Gambhir Singh D/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Jat, Resident Of A Block Subash Nagar Colony, Behind Central Bus Stand, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
,at, Resident Kishanpura Nagar,
...
pondent
.?;$-:*,
~ * " ~~6, . ..).
For ~etitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Saraswat . . . ,. -
For Respondent(s)
10/05/2022
The present trans een preferred by the petitioner under Secti n 22 and 23 of CPC, 1908 for transferrin Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 short) preferred by th nd before the learned Family ~ouk No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur to the learned Family Court, Bharatpur.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 26.02.2009 in accordance with Hindu rituals and out of wedlock of the petitioner and respondent, two sons namely Garv Choudhary and Ishaan Choudhary aged about 8 years and 2 years
respectively were born and presently both are residing with the petitioner. It is stated that since there was dowry demand by the respondent and his family members, therefore the petitioner left her matrimonial house and consequently an FIR No.148 dated 26.09.2018 was lodged by her at Mahila Thana District Bharatpur alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 341 and 354 of IPC wherein after investigation, challan was filed and a criminal ... ,. .. . .
ed that the er children at her
attending the proceedings aW
i Court-I, Jaipur Metropolitan,
that the petitioner has already filed an ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for rest1 a rights at Bharatpur. Further, learned cou that the distance from Bharatpur to Jaipur isg d since both kids are minor and are residin- ,w at Bharat~ur and they are studying at school 4 fore, the petitioner is
unable to attend da s at laipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is dependent on her parents and she is having no source of income. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the respondent husband, in a revision petition preferred by him before this Court, has given his address "Near Shajaband School, Subhash Nagar, P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur" and therefore, the application No. 239512018 preferred by husband under HM Act at Jaipur is
nothing, but an attempt to humiliate the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgment:
(1) Sulochna (Smt.) versus Manoj Kumar reported in 2019(3) CJ (Civ.)(Raj.) 1865
(2) Anshu Bhatnagar versus Rajendra Bhatnagar (SB Civil Transfer Application No. 1312012) decided on 19.11.2012.
Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent .,.. .,~ .. . opposed the the petitioner. counsel for respondent and petitioner and proceedings of t , @&se is pending consideration before the Court of upreme Court in the case of Vinisha Jite hmani versus Jitesh Kishore Tolani reporte SC) 705 has observed that in the matrimonia ituted by the husband against the wife, the con as to be considered or contesting the ly the matrimonial proceedings ought to: e wife is residing. It is also an ad ., ... ,.. . . . petitioner is having
two kids aged about s. Not only this, from Bharatpur to Jaipur the distance is about 180 KMs and therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to attend day to day proceedings at Court of 3aipur.
I have also perused the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Anshu Bhatnagar (supra) wherein this Court in para 7 has observed as under:
7. The Court has to be sensitive to the practical difficulties faced by a woman while traveling especially when she happens to be saddled with the responsibilities of looking after a young child. The Court can neither ignore the concept of gender justice, nor ignore the fact that the woman is entitled to seek justice as much as a man. The petitioner has clearly pointed out that she has to look after a child of three and half
'nces and reasons mentioned in the trans sfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that th 018 (Gambheer Singh g before the Court of Judge, Family Court tropolitan, Jaipur be transferred to the C the parties are dire e the Family Court, The Judge, Famil Metropolitan, Jaipur is directed to send the record of the case to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur forthwith.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
PREETI VALECHA 104
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Jaipur to Bharatpur is warranted in light of the petitioner's residence, minor children, and financial vulnerability.
Whether distance and gender-specific practical difficulties justify transferring jurisdiction under Section 22 and 23 of CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sulochna (Smt.) versus Manoj KumarRelied on¶18
Sulochna (Smt.) versus Manoj Kumar reported in 2019(3) CJ (Civ.)(Raj.) 1865
Anshu Bhatnagar versus Rajendra BhatnagarRelied on¶1922
Anshu Bhatnagar versus Rajendra Bhatnagar (SB Civil Transfer Application No. 1312012) decided on 19.11.2012
Vinisha Jitchhmani versus Jitesh Kishore TolaniDistinguished¶20
Vinisha Jitchhmani versus Jitesh Kishore Tolani reported SC) 705
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Brijesh Kumari
Respondent
MADAN GOPAL VYAS
PREETI VALECHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
