SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karishma Kanwar vs Pradhuman Singh on 12 July, 2017

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 36 / 2017
Karishma Kanwar W/o Pradhuman Singh D/o Madan Singh
Chauhan, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Shiv Colony,
New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Tehsil and District Jaipur
Pradhuman Singh S/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Hanuman Hattha Nagar, Opposite Parishad
Bikaner (Address Mentioned in Divorce Petition R/o Housing Board
Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh
For Petitioner(s) : Mr R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : None present

This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for

transfer of Divorce Petition No.219/2016 filed by the respondent

before Family Court, Hanumangarh to the Family Court at Jaipur.

Briefly stated, the marriage of the parties was solemnized on

04.02.2010. At the time of marriage, the applicant was residing at

Jaipur while the respondents was residing at Bikaner. Their

marriage was registered at Biikaner. After one year of the

marriage, the applicant was subjected to physical and mental

cruelty for dowry, by the respondent and his family members.

After the marriage, in or around October 2011 the applicant

became pregnant. When this fact came to knowledge of her

mother-in-law, she got done her sonography privately and when

the fact of baby girl came to their knowledge, members of
(2 of 3)

respondent’s family subjected her to even more physical and

mental cruelty.

Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under sec.9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act at Hanumangarh. Subsequently, the

respondent tendered apology and took the applicant with him but

attitude of the respondent and his family did not change. She was

thrown out of her matrimonial home by the respondent in July

2014. Presently, the applicant is residing with her parents at

Jaipur while the respondent resides at Bikaner.

Notwithstanding this fact, just to harass and humiliate the

applicant, the respondent has filed a Divorce Petition before the

Family Court, Hanumangarh on 25.04.2016 whereas no cause of

action had arisen at Hanumangarh.

The applicant has lodged an FIR No.192/2016 against the

respondent under sec.498A, 406 and 120B IPC, which was

registered with Mahila Police Station, Jaipur (South) on

28.12.2016. She has also filed an application under sec.12 of the

Domestic Violence Act on 11.01.2017 before the ACJMM, Jaipur.

It was also contended that the applicant is a lady, having no

means of livelihood, she is residing with her parents at Jaipur and

is dependent on them. The marriage of the applicant and the

respondent took place at Jaipur but just to harass humiliate the

applicant, the respondent has filed the Divorce Petition at

Hanumangarh court. The distance between Jaipur and

Hanumangarh is about 400 kms and being a lady, it is very

inconvenient for the applicant to rush to Hanumangarh from Jaipur

for attending proceedings of divorce petition.
(3 of 3)

It is also stated that two cases are already pending against

the respondent at Jaipur, criminal case under FIR 192/2016 and

the application filed under Domestic Violence Act, which is pending

before ACJMM No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan.

Despite service, nobody appeared for the respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Jaipur.

It is true that the applicant lodged an FIR No.192/2016 against

the respondent for offence under secs.498A, 406 120B IPC,

which was registered with Mahila Police Station (South), Jaipur on

25.04.2016 and an application was also filed under the Domestic

Violence Act, which is pending in the court of Metropolitan

Magistrate No.9 at Jaipur. The applicant lady is presently residing

at Jaipur with her parents and is having no means of livelihood

and she is fully dependent on her parents.

The divorce petition has been filed by the respondent at

Hanumangarh, where no party, neither the applicant nor

respondent, reside. Considering the hardship of the applicant lady,

in view of ratio laid down by 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

Divorce Petition No.219/2016 (Pradhuman Singh v. Smt Karishma

Kanwar) pending before the Family Court, Hanumangarh is

ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Jaipur.



Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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