Smita Bijeyant Mahan vs Ashish Kumar on 18 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1045 of 2017

Smita Bijeyant Mahan, wife of Sri Ahish Kumar, daughter of Sri Mahendra
Pratap Singh, at present- Resident of Mohalla- East Mohan Bigha, Kali Asthan,
Dehri-on- Sone, P.O.- Dehri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus

Ashish Kumar, Son of Sri Dhirendra Prasad, Resident of Uday Villa, Chaitanaya
Nagar (Bhagawat Nagar), P.O. P.S.- Agam Kuan, District- Patna.

…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocte
Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-08-2017

The present petition has been filed for transfer of Matrimonial

(Divorce) Case No. 108 of 2017 filed by the opposite party pending in

the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to the Court of

learned Principal Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.

2. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are

that the parties were married on 30.01.2015, but due to ill-treatment

and torture inflicted upon the petitioner by the opposite party and his

family members, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home at

Patna. She has filed Complaint Case No. 84C/2016 before the Court of

learned S.D.J.M., Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas alleging offences under Section

498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act in which cognizance has

been taken for the offence under Section 498A IPC. It is further stated
Patna High Court MJC No.1045 of 2017 dt.18-08-2017 2

that the petitioner is a B.B.A. degree holder, but having left private job

she is unemployed. She has therefore, filed Maintenance Case under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of

the petitioner is unable to maintain the petitioner as he is also un-

employed and the petitioner has no means to appear and contest the

subject divorce case at Patna from her parental house situated at

Dehri-on-sone.

4. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the opposite party resists the transfer petition. He invites attention to

para 5 of the counter affidavit controverting the statement of the

petitioner that she is un-employed. As a matter of fact the petitioner

has been variously employed from time to time and at present holds a

job at Delhi. Earlier she was holding a job in Uttar Pradesh and after

resigning she got another job at Noida as Data Analyst at E.B. Saving

Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the

materials on record, this Court finds the transfer petition to be devoid

of any merit. The specific statement made in para 5 of the counter

affidavit filed by the opposite party has not been denied in the

rejoinder filed by the petitioner and it is therefore, clear that she has

incorrectly stated in the main petition that she is un-employed. If the
Patna High Court MJC No.1045 of 2017 dt.18-08-2017 3

petitioner herself is residing at Delhi where she is engaged in a job and

the opposite party is admittedly working at Jalandhar no purpose

would be served in transferring the Matrimonial Divorce Case to

Rohtas as sought. It is also relevant to note that the opposite party has

filed Cr. Misc. No. 35923 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for

quashing the Complaint Case No. 84C/2016, inter alia, on the ground

that the concerned Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.

This Court takes exception to the misleading statement made by the

petitioner to the effect that she is un-employed, but however, refrains

from imposing any cost.

6. The petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J)
Chandran/BT

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 18.08.2017
Date
Transmission N.A.
Date

Leave a Comment

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