SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anshu Kumari vs Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Ranjit Kumar on 1 September, 2017

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2982 of 2015
Matrimonial Reference No. 4972 of 2014

Anshu Kumari, wife of Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Ranjit Kumar, daughter of Abhay
Kumar Siinha at present resident of village- Mahabala, P.S.- Rupauli, District-

…. …. Petitioner
Ranjit Kumar Sinha @ Ranjit Kumar, son of Murari Prasad, Resident of
Mohalla- Gulzarbagh B.N.R Training College, Near Patharighat, P.S- Alamganj,
District- Patna.

…. Opposite Party


For the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh,
Mr. Satyendra Narayan Verma,
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Tilak Sao, Advocate

Date: 01-09-2017

The present petition has been filed for transfer of
Matrimonial (Restitution) Case No. 4972 of 2014 from the Court of
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea.

2. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are
that the parties were married on 24.02.2011, but soon thereafter, her
in-laws has demanded Rs. 2.00 lakhs to enable the opposite party to
appear in the MCI examination. Non-fulfillment of the demand
resulted in cruelty and torture inflicted upon the petitioner, after which
she came to reside at her father’s house at Purnea. The petitioner has
filed C.A. Case No. 507 of 2012 against the opposite party and others in
which cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has
been taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is a
poor lady having no independent source of income and would be hard
pressed to come to Patna to contest the subject matrimonial case.

Patna High Court MJC No.2982 of 2015 dt.01-09-2017

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party appears and has
been heard. Liberty was granted to the opposite party to state whether
he would be willing to pay the expenses of the petitioner for attending
the case at Patna, but he has not come forward in this regard.

5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the
materials on record, this Court finds merit in the petition. The
petitioner claims to be a poor lady without any independent source of
income and is living at her parental house at Purnea. These facts have
not been controverted by the opposite party and no counter affidavit
has been filed. The C.A. Case No. 507 of 2012 instituted by the
petitioner is also pending at Purnea which the opposite party would be
required to attend in order to contest the same.

6. In this view of the matter, the balance of convenience
clearly lies in favour of the petitioner.

7. It is accordingly directed that Matrimonial (Restitution)
Case No. 4972 of 2014 be transferred from the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to the Court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Purnea.

8. The petition stands allowed.

(Vikash Jain, J)

Uploading 01.09.2017
Transmission N.A.


Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation