Partly allowed

Shreshtha Mishra v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2022CTA/98/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition allowed the transfer of a divorce case filed under the Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court Bikaner to Family Court Jaisalmer, applying the Supreme Court principle that matrimonial proceedings should favor the convenience of the wife residing in Jaisalmer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Case No.170/2022 from Family Court No.1, Bikaner to Family Court, Jaisalmer.

Shreshtha Mishra Vs Sanjay Kumar Pandey — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 98/2022

¶3

Shreshtha Mishra W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Aged About 23 Years, D/o Shri Mritunjay Mishra, B/c Brahmin (Mishra), R/o Plot No. A-183, Laxmi Chand Sanwal Colony, Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sanjay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Ramakant Pandey, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Brahmin (Mishra), R/o D-15, Surajpura Colony, Bikaner. (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

¶10

17/08/2022

¶11

The instant Transfer Petition under Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner for transferring the case No.170/2022 filed by the respondent under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court No.1, Bikaner to Family Court, Jaisalmer.

¶12

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 08.12.2020 the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized at Bikaner as per the Hindu rites. However, due to the ill-treatment made by the respondent and his family members for demand of dowry, the petitioner was left with no other option, but to left the matrimonial house on 14.01.2021.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since under the unavoidable circumstances the petitioner left the matrimonial house, however, the mother of the respondent lodged a criminal case against the petitioner on 15.01.2021 alleging

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CTA-98/2022]

¶16

offences of loot, beating against the petitioner. It is submitted that on 01.02.2021 the petitioner submitted an application under Section 12 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of CJM, Jaisalmer, wherein the notices have already been served upon the respondent and his family members.

¶17

Learned counsel further submits that an FIR No.28 dated 20.02.2021 has also been filed by the petitioner at Mahila Police Station, Jaisalmer alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the IPC wherein a charge sheet dated 18.05.2021 has already been filed by the Investigating Agency against the respondent and his family members in the Court of CJM, Jaisalmer and vide order dated 26.07.2021, the cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the IPC has been taken. Further learned counsel submits that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith application seeking interim maintenance has also been filed before the Family Court, Jaisalmer and the same is pending consideration.

¶18

Learned counsel submits that as a counter blast of the proceedings aforesaid initiated by the petitioner, the respondent husband filed the present application under Section 13(1)(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 09.03.2022 seeking a decree of divorce.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that the distance from Jaisalmer to Bikaner is about 325 KM and there is no male members in the family of the petitioner to accompany with her to attend day to day proceedings at the Family Court No.1, Bikaner. Therefore, it is prayed that the entire proceedings of Case no.170/2022 pending

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CTA-98/2022]

¶22

before the Family Court, Jaisalmer may be transferred to the Family Court No.1, Bikaner.

¶23

Despite service nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. It is not indispute that the petitioner is residing at Jaisalmer and she is depending upon her parents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani Vs. Jitesh Kishore Tolani reported in 2010(1) WLC (SC) 705 has observed that in the matrimonial proceedings instituted by the husband against the wife, the convenience of the wife has to be considered for contesting the suit and accordingly the matrimonial proceedings ought to be transferred where the wife was residing.

¶25

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned in the transfer petition, the transfer petition is allowed.

¶26

It is ordered that the Case No.170/2022 pending in the Family Court No.1, Bikaner be transferred to the Family Court, Jaisalmer.

¶27

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Jaisalmer on 15.09.2022.

¶28

Learned Family Court No.1, Bikaner is directed to send the record of this case to the Family Court, Jaisalmer forthwith.

¶29

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶30

76-Hanuman/-

Shreshtha Mishra v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreshtha Mishra v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey

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

United India Insurance Company Vs Kali Bai

Ramchandra Vs Pushpal Singh

Gopal Singh Vs Lrs of Ganga Devi

M/S. Vashistha Press and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda, Churu

Pummie @ Pista Sharma Vs Udhav Kumar Dubey

Lrs of Lokuram Vs Lrs of Gurcharan Lal