Dharam Pal vs Maya Devi & Anr on 21 November, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 96 / 2017
Dharam Pal S/o Shri Prathviram, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste
Bishnoi, R/o Check 2 DAM Dhani, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District
Sriganganagar.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Maya Devi W/o Shri Dharam Pal D/o Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Manaksar, Tehsil Suratgarh At Present
Ward No. 11, Suratgarh Tehsil and District Sriganganagar.

2. Abhay S/o Dharam Pal, Aged About 12 Years, R/o At Present
Ward No. 11, Suratgarh Tehsil and District Sriganganagar. Through
His Natural Guardian His Mother Maya Devi.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VK Bhadu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aakash Kukkar
__
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
21/11/2017

Present application has been filed under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of case No.23/2015 (Maya

Devi Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal) pending in the Court of Additional

District Judge, Suratgarh to any other Court of Sriganganagar

district.

The petitioner is husband, who has preferred the present

application, seeking transfer of the case, instituted by his wife –

respondent No.1, under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption

and Maintenance Act, for claiming maintenance.

The reason, indicated in the application in para 3 of the

transfer application, in opinion of this Court is vexatious. The

contents of para 3 of the application are reproduced hereunder :-
(2 of 2)
[CTA-96/2017]

“3. That it is respectfully submitted that the
respondent and her father are giving impression
that the judicial officer of the court is under
influence of them and they will get positive order
from him against you. Thus, petitioner has
apprehension that the trial court will pass order
against him.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. VK Bhadu though

could not substantiate the allegation levelled in para 3 of the

petition, but in the alternative submitted that the parties be called

for mediation, that any workable solution or settlement can be

arrived at.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The reason indicated in the application for transfer that the

respondent – Maya Devi has influenced the Presiding Officer of the

Court is absolutely baseless and vexatious. On such ground,

transfer application cannot be entertained much less allowed, until

and unless strong evidence in support of such allegations is

produced.

Besides this, looking to the nature of the case, which is for

claim of maintenance under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, this Court does not find any

reason to transfer the same.

In view of the facts obtaining in the present case, this Court

is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner –

husband, to transfer the case. The present transfer application is,

thus, dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA), J.

Himanshu/-22

Leave a Comment

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