Ruchi vs Sanjiv Kumar on 4 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.87 of 2016
IN
Matrimonial Reference No. 308 of 2018

Ruchi @ Smt. Ruchi, Wife of Sri Sanjiv Kumar, daughter of Sri Satyanarayan
Ray, resident of Mohalla Anandgarh Colony, Tilkamanjhi, P.O. P.S.
Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
Sanjiv Kumar son of Sri Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Sir Ganesh
Dutta Nagar Road No. 4, Bhagwanpur, P.O. Bhagwanpur Chatti, P.S. Sadar,
District- Muzaffarpur
…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Janki Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-09-2017

The present petition has been filed for transfer of

Matrimonial Case No. 308 of 2014 pending in the court of learned

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

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur.

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

are that the parties were married on 14.07.2013 but soon thereafter

the opposite party and his family members began to torture the

petitioner for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 60,00,000/- for

purchasing a flat at Gurgoan, compelling her to come for shelter and to

live at her parental house at Bhagalpur. A complaint in Kotwali

(Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 was filed on 17.03.2015 for the

offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Patna High Court MJC No.87 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017

2/3

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she

would be put to great difficulty if she has to travel to Muzaffarpur in

order to contest the aforesaid matrimonial case and the petitioner’s

parents are persons of advanced age. Her father is at present serving as

Medical Officer in J.L.N.M.C.H, Bhagalpur and taking care of the

petitioner’s mother who is suffering from knee problem and is unable

to perform her daily routine work alone without help. The petitioner’s

only brother is a Bank employee and living in Gujarat. It is therefore

submitted that there is no male member to conveniently accompany

her to Muzaffarpur. Moreover, petitioner’s parents are required to be

examined as witnesses on her behalf and it would be very difficult for

them to travel to Muzaffarpur in the above circumstances.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party appears and

opposes the petition, submitting that the evidence of the opposite party

has already been closed. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father

is admittedly working as a doctor having his own private vehicle and

driver and the petitioner herself is a Government teacher in Secondary

School. The plea of medical problem with the petitioner’s mother is not

correct and the parents of the petitioner are healthy persons.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

careful consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is

not inclined to interfere in the matter. It is not in dispute that the
Patna High Court MJC No.87 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017

3/3

evidence of the opposite party has already been closed. It appears that

the parents of the petitioner are required to be examined. The

petitioner has not enclosed any medical documents to substantiate the

plea that her mother is suffering from knee problem or is otherwise

unable to attend the Court at Muzaffarpur. Moreover, the petitioner

herself is said to be a Government Teacher in Secondary School and

would certainly be capable of attending the matrimonial case at

Muzaffarpur.

6. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/Chandran

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 05.09.2017
Date
Transmission N.A.
Date

Leave a Comment

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