IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2663 of 2015
IN
Matrimonial Reference No. 140 of 2009
Sarita Singh wife of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, daughter of Sri Vivekanand
Singh, resident of Village- Pahlagarh, P.O.- Sonaili and P.S.- Kadba, District-
Katihar.
…. …. Petitioner
Versus
Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Late Jai Narayan Singh, resident of Village-
Chohmar, P.S. Kharik, District- Bhagalpur.
…. …. Opposite Party
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, 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. 140 of 2009 pending in the court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur to the Court of learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.
2. The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner,
are that the parties were married on 09.05.2002 but for non-fulfillment
of dowry demand of the petitioner’s in-laws, the petitioner was treated
with cruelty, forcing her to return to her parents’ house on 20.10.2006
where she filed Complaint Case No. 2398 of 2006 for the offence under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has been
taken.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court MJC No.2663 of 2015 dt.04-09-2017
2/3
petitioner is a lady living with a daughter aged about 10 years at
Katihar in her parental home and she would be put to great difficulty in
attending the subject matrimonial case at Bhagalpur in order to contest
the same.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other
hand, opposes the petition for transfer of the case, pointing out that the
petitioner has already appeared in the matrimonial case and has filed
her written statement. It further appears from the order dated
04.08.2015 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 140 of 2009 that the
opposite party has produced and examined altogether four witnesses
and the evidence of the opposite party has been closed. Moreover, the
petitioner-wife was awarded proceeding cost of Rs. 600/- per date for
her physical attendance in the Court.
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. The grounds raised by the
petitioner do not appear to be such that there would be
insurmountable difficulty for her in going to Bhagalpur to attend her
case. The daughter of the parties is admittedly about 10 years of age
and may be looked after by the petitioner’s parents. Moreover, the
petitioner has been awarded Rs. 600/- as proceeding cost per date
whenever she has to physically attend the court.
6. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Patna High Court MJC No.2663 of 2015 dt.04-09-2017
3/3
(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/Chandran
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading 05.09.2017
Date
Transmission N.A.
Date