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
