Smt. Sarita vs Bheem Singh on 9 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 102 / 2017
Smt. Sarita W/o Sh. Bheem Singh D/o Sh. Ram Pratap, Aged
About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident of Near OBC Bank, Bikaner
Road, Suratgarh, Tehsil- Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

—-Petitioner
Versus
Bheem Singh S/o Sh. Mani Ram Godara, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Jat, Resident of Binjhbayla, Tehsil- Padampur District Sri
Ganganagar At Present Resident of House No. 630. Homeland
City-I, Sri Ganganagar.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr Kshamendra Mathur on behalf of Mr H.R.
Chawla
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
09/08/2017

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

transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.18/2017 (Bheem Singh v. Sarita),

filed by the respondent under sec.25 read with sec.13 of the

Hindu Guardian Wards Act, pending before the Family Court,

Sriganganagar, to the court of Additional District Judge, Suratgarh,

District Sriganganagar.

Briefly stated, marriage of t he parties was solemnized on

27.03.2000 at Pilibanga. Out of the wedlock, three children were

born, namely Kirtika aged about 13 years, Vartika aged about 09

years and Ditasha @ Diva aged about 4 years. All three children
(2 of 5)
[CTA-102/2017]

are residing with the petitioner. The respondent is resident of

Binjhbayla. He used to reside in joint family and his family

depends purely on agriculture work for their living.

A petition under secs.25 and 13 of the Hindu Guardians and

Wards Act was filed by the respondent-husband before Family

Court, Sriganganagar. Transfer of this case, pending before the

Family Judge, Sriganganagar to Suratgarh is sought on the ground

that it is admitted position that parental house of the petitioner is

situated at Suratgarh and all the three children are residing with

the petitioner, of whom two children, namely Kartika and Vartika

are studying in Shah Mastanaji Bal-Balika Ashram, Gurusar Modia,

Tehsil Suratgarh, District Srigangangar and the third child, namely

Ditasha @ Diva is studying at Suratgarh with the petitioner.

It was also contended that Sriganganagar is situated almost

70 kms from Suratgarh and the petitioner is residing at Suratgarh

at her parental house with minor child. It was also stated that the

petitioner has lodged an FIR on 21.06.2015 against respondent

husband and other persons, for offences under secs.307, 324,

323, 406, 498A IPC at Mahila Police Station, Sriganganagar.

Aforesaid FIR was registered as FIR No.126/2015 at the Mahila

Police Station, Sriganganagar and after investigation, the Police

has filed challan against respondent Bheem Singh and Prem

Kumar for offences under secs.307, 323, 324, 498A IPC on

30.11.2015. The case is registered as Cr. Case No.9/2016 and the

same is pending trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge

(WA), Sriganganagar. In that case, one daughter namely Vartika is

also a witness.
(3 of 5)
[CTA-102/2017]

Notice was issued and in response to the notice, the

respondent appeared before this Court and filed reply. In the

reply, he admitted the fact of one pending case before Family

Judge, Sriganganagar but opposed transfer of the case from

Sriganganagar to the court of ADJ, Suratgarh. It was contended

that the two girl children out of three are living in a hostel and are

in the custody of management of said hostel and as such, are not

in the immediate custody of their mother. So far as service of

summons of the respondent, it was submitted that the summons

were not allowed to be served by the petitioner in normal course.

Official report says that it was with great difficulty that summons

could be pasted on wall of petitioner’s house and could not be

served on her personally. Petitioner’s family is influential in the

area and so every trick was played for non-service of summons.

It was also contended that the petitioner concealed material

fact that a Criminal Case No.224/2016 under secs.143, 342, 363,

427 and 452 IPC has also been filed by respondent against the

petitioner, which is pending at Sriganganagar. It was also

submitted that the petitioner has filed a criminal case against the

respondent, which is also pending at Sriganganagar. The petitioner

has been coming to attend both these cases from Suratgarh to

Sriganganagar. As such, if the petitioner can come to

Sriganganagar in these cases, there is no reason why he can not

come to Sriganganagar for case related to custody of children.

It was also contended that the petitioner has been come to

attend the divorce case, pending before Additional District Judge,

Hanumangarh, which was transferred from the Family Court,
(4 of 5)
[CTA-102/2017]

Sriganganagar and which is 80 kms from Suratgarh. It was also

transferred at the instance of the petitioner by Hon’ble High Court

vide order dated 28.03.2017. Therefore, prayer for transfer of

present case is frivolous and has been made with ulterior motive

of causing delay.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In support of contentions on behalf of the petitioner, learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that inconvenience of the lady

is to be looked into. In support of his contentions, he placed

reliance on judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Transfer Application

No.26/2017 (Smt Meena Pareek @ Devika @ Minakshi v. Bajrang

Lal) decided on 10.05.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed transfer of the

case and submitted that distance between Sriganganagar and

Suratgarh is only 70 kms. It is admitted that a criminal case

No.224/2016 for offence under secs.143, 342, 363, 427 and 452

IPC was filed by the respondent against her, which is also pending

at Sriganganagar and the petitioner has also filed a criminal case

against the petitioner, which is also pending at Sriganganagar. The

petitioner has also been coming to attend both these cases

against the respondent from Suratgarh to Sriganganagar.

In these circumstances, it cannot be said that it is very

difficult for her to attend present case filed by the respondent

under secs.25 13 of the Hindu Guardians Wards Act before the

Family Court at Sriganganagar. It is also important to note that

the petitioner has been coming to attend a divorce case, pending

before the Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh, which was
(5 of 5)
[CTA-102/2017]

transferred from the Family Court, Sriganganagar, which is also 80

kms away from Suratgarh. In support of his contentions, the

learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on AIR 2009

SC (Suppl) 758 {Arti Rani anr v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta}.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the

criminal case initiated by the petitioner against the respondent

and the criminal case instituted by the respondent against the

petitioner are pending at Sriganganagar and the both the parties

are attending these cases at Sriganganagar then it would not be

reasonable to transfer the case instituted under secs.25 13 of

the Hindu Guardians Wards Act pending before the Family Court,

Sriganganagar to Surgarh. There is no justifiable ground for

transfer of the case. The instant application is devoid of merits

and the same is dismissed.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/33

Leave a Comment

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