Sarita Singh vs Mithilesh Kumar Singh on 4 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2663 of 2015
IN
Matrimonial Reference No. 140 of 2009

Sarita Singh wife of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, daughter of Sri Vivekanand
Singh, resident of Village- Pahlagarh, P.O.- Sonaili and P.S.- Kadba, District-
Katihar.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus
Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Jai Narayan Singh, resident of Village-
Chohmar, P.S. Kharik, District- Bhagalpur.

…. …. Opposite Party

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, 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. 140 of 2009 pending in the court of learned

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

Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.

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

are that the parties were married on 09.05.2002 but for non-fulfillment

of dowry demand of the petitioner’s in-laws, the petitioner was treated

with cruelty, forcing her to return to her parents’ house on 20.10.2006

where she filed Complaint Case No. 2398 of 2006 for the offence under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has been

taken.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court MJC No.2663 of 2015 dt.04-09-2017

2/3

petitioner is a lady living with a daughter aged about 10 years at

Katihar in her parental home and she would be put to great difficulty in

attending the subject matrimonial case at Bhagalpur in order to contest

the same.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other

hand, opposes the petition for transfer of the case, pointing out that the

petitioner has already appeared in the matrimonial case and has filed

her written statement. It further appears from the order dated

04.08.2015 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 140 of 2009 that the

opposite party has produced and examined altogether four witnesses

and the evidence of the opposite party has been closed. Moreover, the

petitioner-wife was awarded proceeding cost of Rs. 600/- per date for

her physical attendance in the Court.

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. The grounds raised by the

petitioner do not appear to be such that there would be

insurmountable difficulty for her in going to Bhagalpur to attend her

case. The daughter of the parties is admittedly about 10 years of age

and may be looked after by the petitioner’s parents. Moreover, the

petitioner has been awarded Rs. 600/- as proceeding cost per date

whenever she has to physically attend the court.

6. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.2663 of 2015 dt.04-09-2017

3/3

(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 *