Smt. Renuka vs Jitendra Singh on 5 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 70 / 2017
Smt. Renuka W/o Jitendra Singh, D/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Lototi Village, Tehsil Jaitaran, Dist. Palicurrently
Residing At C/o Shri Aman Singh Jijodha S/o Shri Hari Singh
Jodha, Budhvihar Ki Gali, Santoshpura, Masuriya, Near Ramjeo Ji
Ka Mandir, Inside Neel Kanth Mahadeo Lane, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
—-Petitioner
Versus
Jitendra Singh S/o Late Shri Sawai Singh Bhati, Aged About 28
Years, Resident of Pratap Colony, Ward No. 1, Chanderia, Dist.
Chittorgarh.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shridhar Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr Vinod Sharma, Mr Aditya Sharma
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
05/10/2017

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

transfer of Civil Misc. Application No.18/2016 (Jitendra v. Smt

Renuka), filed by respondent under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Family

Court, Chittorgarh, to the Family Court, Jodhpur.

Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized

on 24.04.2012. After the marriage, the respondent started

inflicting cruelty and mental torture and raised demand for money.

The petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial home. Then the

petitioner started living with her grandparents at Jodhpur.

The petitioner is unemployed, has no source of income to

fulfill her daily as well as long term needs and is totally dependent
(2 of 4)
[CTA-70/2017]

on her grand-father and father, who also are having limited

income. The respondent has filed application under sec.9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court, Chittorgarh. It was

contended that it is very difficult for the petitioner to go from

Jodhpur to Chittorgarh and attend the proceedings, particularly in

light of the fact that the intention of the respondent while

initiating such proceedings is to humiliate and harass the

petitioner and secondly, to keep pressure on the petitioner.

Notices of the petition were issued and after due service, the

respondent has put in appearance through advocate. During

pendency of this petition, the parties were directed to appear for

Mediation but the mediation failed. No reply has been filed on

behalf of the respondent.

In the present case, after the marriage, the respondent

started behaving with cruelty and raised demand for money. The

petitioner was ousted from the matrimonial home and she was

compelled to live with her grandparents at Jodhpur. It was

contended that she was unemployed and had no source of income

to fulfill her daily and long terms needs and his grand-father and

father also have limited income. In such circumstances, it is very

difficult for a lady to attend the case filed by respondent under

sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Chittorgarh on each and every

date. The distance between Jodhpur to Chittorgarh is around 300

kms and under these circumstances it is very difficult for a lady to

travel such long distance, especially when she had no independent

source of income and she is totally dependent on her grand-father

.
(3 of 4)
[CTA-70/2017]

In support of the contentions, the counsel for the applicant

submitted a copy of the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B.

Civil Transfer Application No.14/2014: Smt Vinita v. Himanshu

decided on 11.04.2017 and also judgment reported in 2015 (4)

DNJ (Raj.) 1532: Bhavna (Smt) v. Mangi Lal.

The counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions

made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that

mere inconvenience of the party is not a sufficient ground for

transfer of a case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance

on judgment reported in 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 84: Dimple Soni

(Smt) v. Praven Kumar. He also placed reliance on judgment

reported in 2015 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1766: Uma Dwivedi (Smt) v.

Nilakash Dwivedi, in which it was held that it is not necessary that

always convenience of the females should be considered. Women

are misusing the various provisions of Section 498A and Domestic

Violence Act to harass the poor husband and his parents.

Perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel from

both sides. In both the cases cited by learned counsel for the

respondent, the facts and circumstances were different and

distinguishable. No such averment has been made by way of filing

reply by the respondent that the present petitioner is misusing

provisions of law for harassment of poor husband and his parents.

The distance between Jodhpur and Chittorgarh is near about 300

kms and admittedly, the petitioner has no independent source of

income and for her daily needs also she is dependent on her

grandparents. Her father also is not having sufficient means of

income for maintaining her.
(4 of 4)
[CTA-70/2017]

In view of these facts and circumstances and in light of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap

v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in 2016 (4) WLN

237 (SC), it is a fit case to be transferred.

Accordingly, this Transfer Application is allowed and the Civil

Misc. Application No.18/2016 (Jitendra v. Smt Renuka), filed by

the respondent under sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending

before the Family Court, Chittorgarh is ordered to be transferred

to the Family Court at Jodhpur.

(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.

mma/47

Leave a Comment

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