Smt. Leena vs Sunil Dutt on 17 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 143 / 2016
Smt. Leena W/o Sunit Dutt, D/o Late Mahanand Sharma, Aged

About 35 Years, R/o Ray Colony, Barmer City, District- Barmer

(Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Dutt S/o Vishnu Dutt, Aged About 39 Years, R/o K-4 In Front

of Shiv Temple, Madhu Newas, Kishanganj Ajmer

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Karwasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Joshi
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
17/04/2017

1. Petitioner has preferred this transfer petition seeking transfer

of matrimonial case pending before Family Court Judge, Ajmer to

the Court of Additional District Judge, Barmer.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that wife has

filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is pending

before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer and an application under

Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which is pending

before the Additional District Judge, Barmer.

3. It is contended that the divorce petition filed by the

respondent husband be transferred to Barmer.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 2017 DNJ
(2 of 3)
[CTA-143/2016]

(SC) “Krishna Veni Nogom vs. Harish Nogom” and 2016 (4)

WLN 237 (SC) 237 “Vaishali Shridhan Jogtop vs. Shridhan

Vishwanath Jogtop”.

5. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the transfer

application. His contention is that the application for divorce was

filed by the respondent husband on 26.05.2016 and it is only

thereafter that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and

application under Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act was filed

READ  Pratap Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 2 February, 2005

by the applicant wife. It is also contended that the applicant is

looking after his son who is

ten years of age and who is suffering from Bronchial Asthama. It

is also contended that the mother of respondent is also a heart

patient and therefore it is not possible for the respondent to attain

the proceedings at Barmer.

6. Counsel for the respondent has place reliance on AIR 2016

Supreme Court 4833 “Amandeep Goyal vs. Yogesh Rani“.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. The marriage of the parties took place in the years 2006 and

son Saransh was born out of the wedlock 22.10.1017. Petitioner is

living separately from her husband since 2014. Respondent

husband filed an application on 26-05.2016 which is pending

before the Additional District Judge, Barmer. From the documents

produced by the respondent, it is appearing that Saransh is

suffering from Bronchial Asthama and mother of the respondent is

also a heart patient who had a minor heart attack in the year

2013.

9. The facts of the present case are almost akin to the case
(3 of 3)
[CTA-143/2016]

before the Supreme Court “Amandeep Goyal vs. Yogesh Rani

(supra).

10. The child who is with the respondent is suffering from

Bronchial Asthma, the mother of the respondent is also a heart

patient, Considering the same, the petition which was filed prior to

the filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C and

application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act

deserves to be rejected.

READ  Mitali Vs. Dababrata on 24 April, 2009

11. Consequently, the transfer petition is dismissed. Stay

application also stands disposed of.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

Arti/12

Leave a Comment

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