Allowed

Pooja v. Vinod Kumar

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2024CTA/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 15/2024, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Garg allowed the petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial case from Additional District Judge Barmer to Family Court Balotra, citing the petitioner's residence and convenience. The court directed the record to be sent to Balotra.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Misc. Case No. 248/2019 from Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer to Family Court at Balotra.

Pooja Vs Vinod Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:27457]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 15/2024

¶4

Pooja W/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, D/o Hari Ram, Ro Gaur Ka Chowk, Meghwalo Ka Was, Samdari, Tehsil Samdari, Dist. Barmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vinod Kumar S/o Chaila Ram, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Barmer, Dist. Barmer.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.C. Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

08/07/2024

¶13

The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the Misc. Case No. 248/2019 pending before the Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer may be transferred to Family court, Balotra.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer. It is submitted that the petitioner is living at Balotra alongwith small kids and the respondent has filed the said case only with a view to harass the petitioner. It is submitted that after few years of marriage, the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial home and continuously harassed for extraneous reasons. It is submitted that being a lady having no source of income and living with old aged parents, it is very difficult for her

[2024:RJ-JD:27457]

[CTA-15/2024]

(2 of 3)

to travel to Barmer from her residential place at Samdari, Balotra, therefore, the Case No. 248/2019 may be transferred to Family Court at Balotra.

¶19

Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has left the matrimonial home without any reason on her own. It is argued that no case is made out for transfer of the case from Barmer to Balotra and the petition is liable to be rejected.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶21

The respondent has filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner before the learned Addl. District Judge No.1, Barmer. 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 proceeding instituted by the husband against the wife, the convenience of the wife has to be considered in contesting the suit and accordingly, the matrimonial proceedings ought to be transferred where the wife was residing.

¶22

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in AIR 2016 SC 3584 while allowing the appeal filed by wife, directed the case to be transferred from Mumbai to Barshi which is 400 km away from Mumbai. Recently, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ekta Dhadhich vs. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (S.B. Civil Transfer application NO. 72/2021) decided on 30.09.2021 directed the case to be transferred from Ajmer to Family Court at Kota.

[2024:RJ-JD:27457]

[CTA-15/2024]

(3 of 3)

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned in the transfer petition, this petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Misc. Case No. 248/2019 pending before Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer titled as ‘Vinod KumarVs. Smt. Pooja’ be transferred to the Family Court at Balotra.

¶27

The learned Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer is directed to send the record of the case to the Family Court at Balotra.

¶28

Stay application also stands decided.

¶29

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶30

217-BJSH/-

Pooja v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja v. Vinod Kumar

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dashrath Vs Smt.Rukma Devi and Ors.

Kanti Lal Vs M/S Akansha Tent Udyog and Anr.

Ramesh Chandra Gurjar Vs Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur

Manka Ram Vs Sarpanch

Sukhdev Vs State of Rajasthan