IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.87 of 2016
IN
Matrimonial Reference No. 308 of 2018
Ruchi @ Smt. Ruchi, Wife of Sri Sanjiv Kumar, daughter of Sri Satyanarayan
Ray, resident of Mohalla Anandgarh Colony, Tilkamanjhi, P.O. P.S.
Tilkamanjhi, District- Bhagalpur
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
Sanjiv Kumar son of Sri Bhubneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Sir Ganesh
Dutta Nagar Road No. 4, Bhagwanpur, P.O. Bhagwanpur Chatti, P.S. Sadar,
District- Muzaffarpur
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Janki Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-09-2017
The present petition has been filed for transfer of
Matrimonial Case No. 308 of 2014 pending in the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur to the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur.
2. The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner,
are that the parties were married on 14.07.2013 but soon thereafter
the opposite party and his family members began to torture the
petitioner for non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 60,00,000/- for
purchasing a flat at Gurgoan, compelling her to come for shelter and to
live at her parental house at Bhagalpur. A complaint in Kotwali
(Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 was filed on 17.03.2015 for the
offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Patna High Court MJC No.87 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017
2/3
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she
would be put to great difficulty if she has to travel to Muzaffarpur in
order to contest the aforesaid matrimonial case and the petitioner’s
parents are persons of advanced age. Her father is at present serving as
Medical Officer in J.L.N.M.C.H, Bhagalpur and taking care of the
petitioner’s mother who is suffering from knee problem and is unable
to perform her daily routine work alone without help. The petitioner’s
only brother is a Bank employee and living in Gujarat. It is therefore
submitted that there is no male member to conveniently accompany
her to Muzaffarpur. Moreover, petitioner’s parents are required to be
examined as witnesses on her behalf and it would be very difficult for
them to travel to Muzaffarpur in the above circumstances.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party appears and
opposes the petition, submitting that the evidence of the opposite party
has already been closed. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father
is admittedly working as a doctor having his own private vehicle and
driver and the petitioner herself is a Government teacher in Secondary
School. The plea of medical problem with the petitioner’s mother is not
correct and the parents of the petitioner are healthy persons.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
careful consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the matter. It is not in dispute that the
Patna High Court MJC No.87 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017
3/3
evidence of the opposite party has already been closed. It appears that
the parents of the petitioner are required to be examined. The
petitioner has not enclosed any medical documents to substantiate the
plea that her mother is suffering from knee problem or is otherwise
unable to attend the Court at Muzaffarpur. Moreover, the petitioner
herself is said to be a Government Teacher in Secondary School and
would certainly be capable of attending the matrimonial case at
Muzaffarpur.
6. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/Chandran
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 05.09.2017
Date
Transmission N.A.
Date