Smt. Riya Chaudhary vs Krishanu Beniwal on 1 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 69 / 2017
Smt. Riya Choudhary W/o Shri Krishnu Beniwal D/o Shri
Ramswaroop Choudhary, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Jat,
Resident of 92-A, Shyam Path, Nemi Sagar, Vaishali, Jaipur (Raj.).
—-Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Krishanu Beniwal S/o Sh. Kailash Choudhary, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Jat, R/o 64, Nehru Park, Sardarpur, Jodhpur, At
Present 227/17E, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Anuj Sahlot
For Respondent(s) : Mr Amandeep Lamba
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
01/08/2017

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

transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.736/2016- Krishanu Beniwal v. Smt

Riya Choudhary, filed by the respondent under sec.13 of the Hindu

Marrriage Act before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan

to the Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan.

Briefly stated, marriage of the parties was solemnized on

22.04.2015 at Jaipur. After the marriage, the respondent and his

relatives used to subject the petitioner to cruelty and harassment

for dowry, for which an FIR was lodged by petitioner under

secs.498A 406 IPC against the respondent and his family

members on 20.01.2017 at Mahila Police Station, Jaipur (West).

On 02.02.2017, the petitioner also filed a petition under sec.125

CrPC for maintenance against the respondent in the Family Court
(2 of 5)
[CTA-69/2017]

No.1, Jaipur, which was registered as Case No.190/2017. A

complaint under sec.12 of the Domestic Violence Act was also filed

by the petitioner against respondent and his family members in

the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.14, Jaipur. Further, a

petition under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the

petitioner on 18.03.2017 for restitution of conjugal rights in the

Family Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan. In counter blast, a divorce

READ  D.K. Ganesh Babu vs P.T. Manokaran & Ors on 23 February, 2007

petition under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the

respondent in the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan. On

these facts, transfer of the divorce petition filed by the

respondent, pending before Family Judge No.1, Jodhpur

Metropolitan to the Family Court No.1, Jaipur has been sought.

It was contended that the petitioner is a young lady and

quite unable to travel alone from Jaipur to Jodhpur, which is about

350 kms away from her home. There is no one to accompany her

and looking to past behaviour and treatment of respondent and

his family, there remains a reasonable fear or apprehension of

being beaten or injured by them if she goes to Jodhpur; whereas,

if the aforesaid divorce petition is transferred from Jodhpur to

Jaipur, the respondent will face no inconvenience and hardship, as

the respondent is already attending courts at Jaipur in Criminal

Case under secs.498A, 406 IPC (No.23/2017) registered at Mahila

Police Station, Jaipur (West), Jaipur, Cr. Misc. Case No.190/2017

under sec.125 CrPC which is pending before Family Court No.1,

Jaipur and Case No.06/2017 under sec.12 of the Domestic

Violence Act pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate

No.14, Jaipur; apart from Case No.576/17 under sec.9 of the
(3 of 5)
[CTA-69/2017]

Hindu Marriage Act filed by petitioner, pending before the Family

Court No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan.

A reply to the Transfer Application on behalf of the

respondent has been filed and the averments of the transfer

petition are denied. It is asserted that the petition under sec.13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent, was not in

counter-blast but the petitioner left house of the respondent

without any cause. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are

READ  Amarkant Shalikram Samrit vs State Of ... on 7 July, 2017

false and baseless with regard to harassment or demand of dowry

and subjecting her to cruelty.

It was also mentioned that the respondent met with an

accident in the month of August 2014, due to which his leg

fractured and after surgery, a rod wasfixed in the leg. The

respondent can perform his daily routine, however, it is very

cumbersome for him to do journey every now then.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is admitted position that a criminal case under sec.498A

406 IPC and the petition filed by the petitioner under sec.12 of the

Domestic Violence Act are pending against the respondent at

Jaipur and further, an application under sec.125 CrPC for granting

maintenance and petition filed under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act by the petitioner are also pending before the Family Court

No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan. In all these cases, the respondent is

attending hearing before courts at Jaipur. Only one case, filed by

the respondent under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is pending

before the Family Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan.

The respondent has submitted that he met with an accident
(4 of 5)
[CTA-69/2017]

and on account of the accident, he has suffered fracture in his leg

and a rod was fixed in the leg but no medical certificate or any

other relevant document was filed before the court. In support of

his contentions, the respondent has filed judgment in S.B. Civil

Transfer Petition No.120/2015 (Smt Heena Panchal v.

Harshad Panchal) decided on 08th August 2016 and also

judgment reported in 2013(1) DNJ (Raj) 84: Dimple Soni

(Smt) v. Praven Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when other

proceedings between the parties are already pending at Jaipur

READ  Nishan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2017

then there is no reason why the Divorce petition filed by the

respondent at Jodhpur be not transferred to Jaipur. In support of

his contentions, he relied on judgment reported in (2016) 3 SCC

69: Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, 2009(3) DNJ

(Raj) 1483: Aketa (Smt) v. Anurag Joshi and 2009(3) DNJ

(Raj) 1683: Sudesh Agarwal (Smt) v. Sanjay Gupta.

Perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel from

both sides. The Apex Court in Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai

Kothari (supra) held that where other proceedings between the

parties are pending, there is no reason why divorce case be not

transferred to that place.

In the present case, it is admitted position that 3 cases

between the parties are pending at Jaipur. Then there is no reason

why the divorce petition pending before the Family Judge No.1,

Jodhpur Metropolitan be no transferred to the Family Court at

Jaipur Metropolitan. It is very inconvenient for a lady to travel all

alone from Jaipur to Jodhpur, especially when she does not have
(5 of 5)
[CTA-69/2017]

any independent source of income. In the facts and circumstances

of the present case, considering the hardship of the applicant lady,

in view of the 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

Misc. Case No.736/2016 (Krishanu Beniwal v. Smt Riya

Choudhary), filed by the respondent for under sec.13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur

Metropolitan is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court No.1,

Jaipur Metropolitan.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/54

Leave a Comment

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