HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. MCC. No.1771/2017
Parties Name Sangeeta Grover
Vs.
Ranjan Grover
Date of Judgment 23-01-2018
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No
Name of counsels for parties Petitioner: Shri M.K. Chourasia, Adv.
Respondent: Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Adv.
Law laid down –
Significant paragraph numbers –
(Order)
23.01.2018
In this application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, she has prayed for transfer of Case No.60/2017 from the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni to the Competent Court at Jabalpur.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the applicant and the respondent
solemnized marriage on 11-05-2003 through Hindu customs. The case of the
wife is that she was harassed and tortured by the husband and the family
members. Father of applicant passed away on 19-02-2006. Her only brother
Kapil is suffering from ‘stiff neck with scoliosis’. He is disabled to the extent of
40%. The applicant’s mother is an aged ailing old lady and her financial
condition is very bad. The applicant could not stay with the husband and
ultimately she came back to her mother’s place. The applicant travelled with her
two sons to Bhavnagar via Delhi. The respondent lodged a missing complaint in
the police station and the police recovered her and two sons from Bhavnagar
(Gujarat). In January 2017, the respondent preferred an application before the
Juvenile Board at Jabalpur stating that two children are in custody of present
-:- 2 -:-
MCC. No.1771/2017
applicant and they are not safe and thus they be handed over to the applicant. The
applicant submits that her two sons are school going children. The respondent
filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 03-05-
2017 before the competent Court at Katni, which was registered as Case.
No.60/17. The applicant, in turn, appeared before the said Court and filed her
reply. The applicant has no support from any male member and she had to travel
all the way to Katni to contest the said matter. Katni is about 100 kms away from
Jabalpur. Considering the aforesaid, the said case bearing No.60/17 may be
directed to be transferred to Jabalpur.
3. The respondent has not filed any reply. Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned
counsel for the respondent formally opposed the said contention.
4. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
5. This Court in MCC. No.501/12 (Smt. Anjo Bai @ Asha Bai vs. Raj
Kishor Yadav) held as under:-
“3. The applicant contended that the respondent and his
family members are threatening the applicant and forcing
her to enter into a compromise. Regarding said threatening,
the applicant preferred various complaints filed as Annexure
A/1 to A/4 before various authorities. The applicant has no
source of income and she is dependent upon her parents. For
these reasons, she prayed for transfer of the matter. This
Court on 13-04-2012 passed an interim order and stayed the
proceedings of Civil Suit No.53-A/11. The respondent has not
filed reply till date and nobody appeared for the respondent
even in the pass over round. As per Registry Note dated 18-
04-2013, the respondent is served.
4. In the aforesaid factual backdrop ground, the basic
question is whether the Civil Suit should be directed to be
transferred. The point involved in this case is no more res
integra. In the recent judgment reported in 2017 (2) MPLJ
123 (Apeksha Yadav vs. Amit Kumar Yadav), this Court
-:- 3 -:-
MCC. No.1771/2017
held that the wife staying at Bhopal is facing a divorce
petition by her husband filed at Pipariya (Hoshangabad), the
apprehension in the mind of wife is that if she goes to
Pipariya to depose her statement, she may be subjected to an
untoward incident by the respondent. This Court directed to
transfer the matter.
5. After considering the judgment reported in 2010 (4)
MPLJ 391 (Jyoti Bangde vs. Sanjay Bangde), this Court
directed to transfer the matter to Bhopal. Similarly, in
another recent judgment 2017 (3) MPLJ 461 (Veena vs.
Subhash Rao), the Court has taken the same view. In 2017
(4) MPLJ 196 (Saifali Saraf vs. Aantriksha Saraf), another
Bench of this Court has taken the same view and directed for
transfer of the matter.
6. Considering the aforesaid, I find justification in the
prayer of the applicant seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.53-
A/11. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The
matrimonial matter i.e. Civil Suit No.53-A/11 is directed to
be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge,
Panna to the Court of District Judge, Katni. The Court at
Panna shall forthwith send the record to Family Court,
Katni. The Family Court Katni shall proceed with the matter
in accordance with law.”
6. This Court on the basis of judgment of Apeksha Yadav vs. Amit Kumar
Yadav reported in 2017 (2) MPLJ 123 held that if there exists an apprehension
in the mind of the wife that if she goes to Piparia, she may be subjected to a
untoward incident at the behest of respondent, it is sufficient ground to order the
transfer of the case.
7. In the present case, it is clear that it will be very inconvenient for the
applicant to attend the Court proceeding which are instituted at a different place
then the place where the applicant is stationed. She has two children to look after
-:- 4 -:-
MCC. No.1771/2017
and no male member is available to support her. In this factual backdrop, I deem
it proper to allow this application.
8. In the result, it is ordered that the Case No.60/17 pending before the
Principal Judge, Family Court Katni shall be transferred to the Family Court at
Jabalpur and later Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
9. The application is allowed. No cost.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
mohsin
Digitally signed by MOHAMMED MOHSIN QURESHI
Date: 2018.01.23 22:48:12 -08’00’
