Seema Thakur vs Lokesh on 12 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 107 / 2015
Seema Thakur w/o Lokesh Kumar D/o Ratan Kumar Thakur, aged
about 31 years, r/o House No.56, Shiva Colony, near Imaliwala
Phatak, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur

—-Petitioner
Versus
Lokesh s/o Roopchand, by caste Dhobi, aged 32 years, r/o
Baginada Road, near Baginada Hanuman Temple, Rani Bazar,
Bikaner

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Deepak Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr Govind Suthar on behalf of Mr Manoj
Bhandari
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
12/07/2017

This Transfer Petition under sec.24 CPC has been filed

praying for transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.476/2014 (Lokesh v.

Smt Seema) filed under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as also

Civil Misc. Case No.14/2015 (Smt Seema v. Lokesh) filed under

sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, both pending before Family

Bikaner, to Family Court at Jaipur.

Briefly stated, marriage of the parties was solemnized on

19.07.2010. Out of their wedlock, one male child born on

06.09.2011. Soon after the marriage, the respondent started

misbehaving, causing mental and physical cruelty, on account of

demand of dowry. On 01.12.2012, when the petitioner was at
(2 of 5)
[CTA-107/2015]

Bikaner, the respondent husband and his family members beaten

her, demanded dowry and thrown her out of the matrimonial

home. After this incident, the petitioner phoned and called her

father at Bikaner and narrated him entire incident. Father of the

petitioner was not in a position to fulfill the illegal demand of

dowry. Under these conditions, the petitioner took recourse to

legal proceedings by submitting a complaint before competent trial

court at Jaipur, which was sent for investigation under sec.156 (3)

to Mahila Police Station, Jaipur (South); on the basis of which an

READ  Shri Navnath Machindra Kandhare-vs-State Of Maharashtra on 13 July, 2005

FIR No.33/2015 was registered against the respondent and his

family members for offence under secs.498A, 406, 323, 341

120B IPC, which is pending investigation.

The respondent submitted a petition under sec.13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bikaner. The

petitioner has also filed an application under sec.24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bikaner against the

respondent for grant of maintenance for herself and her minor

son. The respondent husband and his family members are

continuously giving threat to the petitioner and her family

members on phone. In these circumstances, it would not be

possible for her to travel from Jaipur to Bikaner on each every

date of hearing.

It was also contended that petitioner’s father is very old

person and her mother is also a house-wife. It is not possible for

her father as well as mother to accompany her to Bikaner on each

and every date of hearing. There is no one else in the family of

the petitioner to accompany her to Bikaner.
(3 of 5)
[CTA-107/2015]

Notices of this petition were served on the respondent and

power was filed for the sole respondent. A reply to the Transfer

Application has been filed and it was stated that during the period

of marriage, the petitioner was living with her parents at Jaipur

and despite her several times, she was not willing to come to

Bikaner. The respondent also went to Jaipur with his maternal

uncle on 21.11.2011 but father of petitioner declined to send her

daughter with the respondent.

It was also stated that it is absolutely incorrect and false that

the respondent or his family members have beaten the petitioner

READ  Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013

and demanded dowry. It was also contended that it has now

become usual practice that when the girl herself does not want to

live with husband, it is very easy to caste aspersion and

allegations against the husband and his parents. Filing of FIR in

the year 2015 clearly goes to show that if at all there was some

truth in the allegations levelled by the petitioner, the FIR could

have been filed in the year 2012 when the respondent alleged to

have beaten her.

An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner

Smt Seema Thakur on 07.07.2017, whereby it was contended that

during pendency of the Transfer Petition, the petitioner has filed

an application under sec.125 CrPC (No.576/2015) for maintenance

from the respondent before the Family Court, Jaipur Metropolitan.

Another case No.417/2015 has also been filed by the petitioner

before court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.8,

Jaipur Metropolitan against the respondent for offence under the

Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending before that court.
(4 of 5)
[CTA-107/2015]

Similarly, a criminal case No.33/2015 for offence under secs.498A,

406 IPC is also pending against the respondent before court of

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan.

It is also stated that the petitioner is continuously receiving

threats from respondent and it is causing great hardship to the

petitioner to travel from Jaipur to Bikaner on every date of hearing

before the Family Court, Bikaner, as her father is very old and it is

not possible for her father mother to accompany the petitioner

on each every date of hearing.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

On the face of facts mentioned in the Transfer Application

and the facts mentioned in the Additional Affidavit filed by the

READ  Puran Babu Chavan-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2003

petitioner, it is true that during pendency of this Transfer Petition,

an application under sec.125 CrPC for maintenance, being Case

No.576/2015) was filed, which is pending before the Family Court,

Jaipur Metropolitan. Another case No.417/2015 has also been

before the ACMM No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan against the

respondent for offence under Domestic Violence Act. Similarly,

criminal case No.33/2015 filed by the petitioner against

respondent husband and his family for offence under secs.498A,

406, 323, 341 120B IPC is also pending before competent

criminal court at Jaipur.

The petitioner is living with her parents. It is no doubt that

age of father of the petitioner is near about 80 years. There is no

evidence that the petitioner is having independent source of

income and there is no one in her family to accompany the
(5 of 5)
[CTA-107/2015]

petitioner from Jaipur to Bikaner for attending proceedings of the

Divorce Petition filed by the respondent.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

considering hardship of the applicant lady, in view of ratio laid

down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v.

Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in 2016 (4) WLN 237

(SC), it is a fit case to order transfer of the Divorce Petition filed

by the respondent and the application under sec.24 filed by the

respondent, from Family Court, Bikaner to Jaipur.

Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the

Divorce Petition No.476/2014 (Lokesh v. Smt Seema) as well as

Civil Misc. Case No.14/2015 (Smt Seema v. Lokesh), pending

before the Family Court, Bikaner are ordered to be transferred to

the Family Court at Jaipur.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/82

Leave a Comment

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