Rupam Mani Priya vs Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary on 8 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2513 of 2016

Rupam Mani Priya W/o Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary D/o Abhay Kumar Mandal,
Address- Hridya Nath Mandal Sakin Vivekanath Colony, Rajni Chowk, P.S.-
Rajni Chowk, P.O. – Rajni Chowk, District Purnea.

…. …. Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Son of Sridhar Chaudhary Resident of Village –
Bikram Sher, Post Office – Mobahi, P.S. – Babubarhi, District – Madhubani, At
presently resident of Flat No. 303 ‘A’ Block, Ramchandra Enclave Apartment,
Road no. -1, Shivpuri, P.S. – Shastri Nagar, P.O. – Shastri Nagar, District – Patna.

…. …. Respondents

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : None

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 08-09-2017

The present petition has been filed for transfer of

Matrimonial Case No. 489 of 2015 from the Court of learned Principal

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

Family Court, Purnea.

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

are that the parties were married on 26.11.2012 but following cruelty

and torture meted out to the petitioner for non-fulfillment of demand

of Rs. 40,00,000/- for purchase of a flat at Patna, she was finally ousted

from the matrimonial home on 17.08.2014 after which she has been

residing at her parental house at Purnea. The opposite party filed

Matrimonial Case No. 489 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights

which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Patna High Court MJC No.2513 of 2016 dt.08-09-2017

2/3

Patna. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Complaint Case No. 827 of

2016 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea for the

offences under Sections 323, 380 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is a poor lady having a girl child to take care of and is fully

dependent on her father who is a poor agriculturist and as such she

would be put to great difficulty in traveling to Patna to attend the

subject matrimonial case. It is further stated that even though the

opposite party claims to be residing at Patna at present, he is a

permanent resident of Madhubani and is also employed as Assistant

Engineer, RWD, Government of Bihar, Works Division, Hajipur.

4. Despite valid service of notice, the opposite party has

not entered appearance nor is he represented when the matter is

called today.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

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

finds considerable merit in the petition. The petitioner is a poor lady

having a small girl child to take care of at Purnea where she resides

with her father who is a poor farmer. The subject matrimonial case has

been filed at Patna even though the opposite party is an employee at

Hajipur and is a permanent resident of Madhubani. Moreover,

Complaint Case No. 827 of 2016 instituted by the petitioner is pending
Patna High Court MJC No.2513 of 2016 dt.08-09-2017

3/3

at Purnea which the opposite party would be required to attend. The

balance of convenience therefore lies in favour of the petitioner.

6. In the above view of the matter, this Court directs

transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 489 of 2015 filed at the instance of the

opposite party from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

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

its disposal.

7. The petition stands disposed of.

(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 12.09.2017
Date
Transmission N.A.
Date

Leave a Comment

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