Smt. Manasvi Rathore vs Ajay Singh on 18 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 53 / 2016
Smt. Manasvi Rathore w/o Ajay Singh D/o Maan Singh Lakshman
Prasad Sharma, aged 25 years, by caste Rajput, r/o 23, raajmata
ka nohra, near veterinary college, Bikaner (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Singh s/o Mool Singh, aged 25 years, by caste Rajput, r/o
Shiv Colony, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s) : None
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
18/07/2017

This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for

transfer of Civil Original Case No.18/2015 (Ajay Singh v. Smt

Manasvi), preferred by respondent under sec.13(1)(i)(a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Jhunjhunu

to the Family Court, Bikaner.

Briefly stated, the petitioner and respondent married on

16.02.2014 and there is no issue out of their wedlock. It is

submitted that the petitioner had lodged a criminal complaint for

offence under secs.498A, 406, 323, 354 IPC whereupon FIR

No.274/2014 was registered at Mahila Police Station, Bikaner. In

that case, the Police filed Final Report on the ground that a

compromise has taken place between the parties. However, after

the compromise the behaviour of the respondent never changed
(2 of 3)
[CTA-53/2016]

and the petitioner was constrained to confront by way of filing a

Protest Petition against the FR, which is pending before court of

competent jurisdiction at Bikaner.

It is also submitted that the petitioner is about 25 years of

age, she do not have any any independent source of income and

READ  K.R.J. Sarma vs R.V. Surya Rao & Anr on 1 April, 2013

is not able to maintain herself. The distance between Jhunjhunu

and Bikaner is about 300-350 kms and it is very difficult for the

petitioner to travel from Bikaner on every date of hearing to

contest the case before learned Family Court at Jhunjhunu.

Notices were issued to the respondent on 07.04.2017 and

power was filed on his behalf. Thereafter, time was taken for filing

reply on 26.04.2017, 11.05.2017 and 07.07.2017 but no reply has

been filed. Today, no one has appeared for the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The parties married on 16.02.2014 at Bikaner. Counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was expelled out of

matrimonial home on account of non-fulfillment of demand for

dowry. Presently she is living at Bikaner with her parents. A

complaint was also lodged under secs.498A, 406, 323, 354 IPC, in

which Final Report was filed on the ground of compromise

between the parties but later on, the respondent denied to take

the petitioner with him to the matrimonial home. Thereupon a

Protest Petition has been filed against the FIR, which is pending

consideration before the competent court at Bikaner. The

respondent has preferred Divorce Petition before the District

Judge, Jhunjhunu. It is also contended that the distance between

Bikaner and Jhunjhunu is 300-350 Kms and it is not possible for
(3 of 3)
[CTA-53/2016]

the petitioner lady to contest the case pending at Jhunjhunu in the

circumstances when she had no independent source of income.

Considering the hardship of the applicant lady, in view of the

READ  Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr. on 7 October, 2009

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 be transferred.

Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the Civil

Original Case No.18/2015 (Ajay Singh v. Manasvi) pending before

the Family Court, Jhunjhunu is ordered to be transferred to the

Family Court at Bikaner.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/39

Leave a Comment

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