Smt. Simran @ Kanta vs Prem Kumar Bachani on 6 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 70 / 2015
Smt. Simran @ Kanta w/o Sh. Prem Kumar Bachani D/o Sh. Prem
Chand Khelani, by caste Sindhi, aged about 43 years, presently
r/o House No.710, First B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
—-Petitioner
Versus
Prem Kumar Bachani s/o Sh. Madhavdas, by caste Sindhi, aged
about 49 years, r/o 28 Friend’s Colony, near Kelgiri Hospital,
Malviya Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr Devi Singh Bhati
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Order
06/07/2017

This Transfer Petition under sec.24 read with sec.151 CPC

has been filed to transfer Civil Misc. Case No.35/2015 (Prem

Kumar Bachani v. Smt Simran @ Kanta), pending at the Family

Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, to Family Court at Jodhpur.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the marriage of the

parties was solemnized on 21.10.1996 at Jodhpur. After some

time of the marriage, the respondent started making demand of

dowry and torturing her. Presently, the petitioner is having two

daughters, namely Shweta and Manasi. The respondent has

levelled false character allegations against the petitioner and is

not accepting daughter Shweta.

It is further stated that the petitioner was forced to leave

the matrimonial home and the respondent also initiated legal
(2 of 4)
[CTA-70/2015]

proceedings against her, which was settled by petitioner looking to

future of their daughters. The petitioner was also forced to sign

some compromise documents on conditions of the respondent.

However, despite all efforts of the petitioner, the respondent

has not changed his behaviour and continued to harass and

demand dowry. In such circumstances, the petitioner lodged an

FIR against the respondent for offence under sec.498A and 406

IPC, in which charge-sheet was filed and after trial in that case

No.503/2011 (State v. Prem Kumar), vide order dated 22.05.2014

the learned Munsif Magistrate, Jodhpur found the respondent

guilty of the offence charged against him. The respondent filed an

appeal against his conviction before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur

District, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.41/2014 and

the same is pending adjudication.

The respondent has filed a Divorce Petition under sec.13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur

Metropolitan, in which he has levelled vague and baseless

allegations against the petitioner.

It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady, having two

daughters. One daughter, namely Shweta, is living with the

petitioner and she is not having any source of income and she is

not highly educated. Father of the petitioner is not in a condition

to maintain her and her daughter. Due to financial problems, a

lady like her with two daughters is unable to appear and contest

divorce case filed by the respondent before the Family Court No.2,

Jaipur Metropolitan.
(3 of 4)
[CTA-70/2015]

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is

presently residing with her father, with her one daughter. The

petitioner is under constant threat to her life because the

respondent is financially very sound person and he may try to

take illegal benefit of her loneliness at Jaipur court.

It is further argued that the respondent was held guilty in

criminal case No.503/2011 (State v. Prem Kumar), which was

decided on 22.05.2014 and against that order an appeal filed by

the respondent, registered as Criminal Appeal No.41/2014, is

pending before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District. It is also

stated that the respondent is continuously attending proceedings

of aforesaid appeal at Jodhpur and in this situation, in case the

Divorce Petition filed by the respondent at Jaipur is transferred to

Jodhpur, it will not adversely affect the respondent. On the other

hand, hardship of the petitioner, being a lady of 43 years of age

with young daughter, she is not having regular source of income

and her father is not capable of bearing expenses to attend

proceedings at Jaipur, deserves to be considered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on

judgments reported in AIR 2002 SC 396 (Sumita Singh v. Kumar

Sanjay another), 2015(4) DNJ (Raj) 1511 (Sonu Soni (Smt) v.

Jayesh Kumar Soni) as also decision of this Court dated

29.01.2014 delivered in S.B. Civil Misc. Transfer Application

No.05/2013 (Kamaljeet Kaur v. Mahipal Singh), in support of his

submission that due credence should be given to inconvenience of

wife in transfer of a matrimonial case.
(4 of 4)
[CTA-70/2015]

In the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court,

this is a fit case where convenience of the lady deserves to be

considered and the present Transfer Application of petitioner-wife

deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, this Transfer Application is allowed and it is

ordered that the Civil Misc. Case No.35/2015 (Prem Kumar

Bachani v. Smt Simran @ Kanta) be transferred from the Family

Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan to the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/50

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *