Dismissed

Durga @ Saraswati v. Mahendra Narayan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2022CTA/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second transfer petition filed by a petitioner seeking to move a pending matrimonial proceeding from Jodhpur to Kishangarh. The court held that the petitioner's father's death did not warrant transfer as she attends other criminal cases in Jodhpur and she has a brother who can accompany her. The petitioner is not allowed to file a second petition after the first was dism

What did the court decide?

The second transfer petition was dismissed; the previous order directing the respondent to pay Rs. 2,000 for travel, lodging and boarding is reiterated as operative.

Durga @ Saraswati Vs Mahendra Narayan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 24/2022

¶3

Durga @ Saraswati W/o Mahendra Narayan, Aged About 32 Years, Bichli Khirki, Purviyon Ka Mohalla, Naya Shahar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahendra Narayan S/o Jagdish Narayan, Aged About 34 Years, Krishi Mandi, Laxminarayan Mandir Ke Pass, Maderna Colony, Badwasiya Road, Jodhpur

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shahadat Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mukherjee

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

Date of Judgment 27/08/2022

¶12

The present Second Transfer Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transferring the case No.185/2018(218/2016) (Mahendra Narayan Vs. Smt. Durga Alias Saraswati), filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the court of the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur to the Court of Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶13

Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 29.06.2001 and, thereafter, in the year, 2003 the petitioner was residing at her matrimonial home after solemnizing “Muklawa”. It is claimed in the petition that since there was no harmony between the couple and there was a dowry demand from the side

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

[CTA-24/2022]

¶16

of the respondent and his family members, therefore, the petitioner was left the matrimonial home on 14.07.207. It is also submitted that an FIR No.358/2013 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 and 120-B of the IPC was lodged by the petitioner against the respondent. It is also submitted that a criminal complain under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent at the competent court of jurisdiction at Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner has preferred a transfer petition being transfer petition No.109/2016, however, this Court vide its order dated 17.01.2018 rejected the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was attending proceedings of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Family Court No.2, Jodhpur, the father of the petitioner was alive and he was accompanying with her. However on 18.11.2021 the father of the petitioner has expired and since there is no other male member in her family, she is now facing difficulty in attending the court proceedings at Jodhpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kishangarh and if the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not be transferred to the Court at Kishangarh then there would be possibility of different findings in both the cases and therefore, it is prayed that the case no.185/2018(218/2016) may be transferred from the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur to the Additional District Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶18

(3 of 5)

¶19

[CTA-24/2022]

¶20

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the father of the petitioner has never ever attended the proceedings at Jodhpur whenever the petitioner appeared before the Family Court No.2, Jodhpur. It is also submitted that the petitioner is also having a brother aged about 40 years and therefore, he can very well accompany with the petitioner for attending proceedings at the Family Court No.2 Jodhpur. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court while rejecting the first transfer application has already directed the respondent to pay a sum of the Rs.2,000/- to recompense to cost of travelling, lodging and boarding to the petitioner and respondent is paying the same without any fault.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent has also produced for perusal of the Court a list of criminal cases so as to show that as many as six criminal cases are pending consideration against the petitioner at the Courts of ACJM No.3, Jodhpur, MM-6, Jodhpur and ACJM, Jodhpur and the petitioner is attending the proceedings in those courts.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that at best the petitioner can challenge the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by this Court rejecting her earlier transfer application before the Hon’ble Apex Court and there is no remedy of filing of the Second Transfer petition before this Court and therefore, it is prayed that the present second transfer petition may be rejected.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 rejected the first transfer petition as preferred by the petitioner while taking into consideration all the facts and

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

[CTA-24/2022]

¶27

circumstances of the case. The operative part of the order dated 17.01.2018 reads as under:-

¶28

“In the facts obtaining in the present case, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to transfer the case in question from Jodhpur to Kishangarh; however, to meet the ends of justice, it is deemed expediet and hence ordered that as and when petitioner comes to Jodhpur for taking part in the proceedings, the respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to recompense the cost of her travel, lodging and boarding etc.

¶29

The learned Family Court Jodhpur No.1 would ensure that on each such occasion when the petitioner Smt. Durga alias Saraswati comes to the Family Court and effectively participate in the proceedings, such amount of cost as aforesaid is paid to her.

¶30

With these observations, the transfer application stands disposed of”.

¶31

The ground raised by the petitioner that now her father expired on 18.11.2021 and there is no male member in her family to accompany her to attend the Court proceedings at Jodhpur is no ground in the eye of law specifically when following criminal cases are registered pending against her:-

¶32

Sr. No.	Detail of Cases	Pending before
1.	Jagdish Narayan Vs. Durga @ Saraswati Case No.166/2017	ACJM No.3, Jodhpur
2.	Pappuram Vs. Durga @ Saraswati Case No.3175/2019	M.M.-6, Jodhpur
3.	Ramesh Narayan Vs. Durga @ Saraswati Case No.82/2019	ACJM No.3, Jodhpur
4.	Bannaram & Ors. Vs. Durga @ Saraswati Case No.30/2016	ACJM No.3, Jodhpur
5.	Mahendra Narayan Vs. Durga @	M.M.-6,Jodhpur

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

[CTA-24/2022]

¶35

Saraswati Case No.3176/2019

¶36

Ramesh & Anr. Vs. Durga @ ACJM No.3, Jodhpur Saraswati Case No.31/2016

¶37

In view of the above, the present second transfer petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the amount of Rs.2,000/which is ordered by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 to recompense the cost of her travel, lodging and boarding etc. shall be paid by the respondent to the petition has already ordered.

¶38

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶39

81-Hanuman/-

Durga @ Saraswati v. Mahendra Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga @ Saraswati v. Mahendra Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jain Tyre and Co. Vs Dunlup India and Ors.

Icici Lombard Vs Gagan and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Reshami and Ors.

Bhagwan Das Vs Jagdish Gargi

Rseb Jaipur and Ors. Vs Bhat Samaj Pali

Asst.Engineer-Rseb-Pali and Ors. Vs Heera Lal