SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shashi Kumari vs Bikramjeet on 19 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2447 of 2018

Shashi Kumari @ Sashi Kumari Wife of Bikramjeet, Daughter of Late Bishu
Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Larkania Tola, P.S. Katihar Town and District-
Katihar.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus
Bikramjeet Son of Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla- Belwaganj,
P.S.- Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-07-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the opposite party.

2. The petitioner being the wife of the opposite party has

filed the present case under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure seeking transfer of Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 11

of 2017, filed by the opposite party, which is pending in the Court

of Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga to the Court of

Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.

3. The petitioner and opposite party were married on

13.05.2007 and on 18.02.2008, a son was born out of the wedlock.

The opposite party alleging cruelty against the petitioner filed the

present Matrimonial (Divorce) Case on 19.01.2017. The petitioner
Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
2/6

has also filed Complaint Case at Katihar under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and also a Maintenance case before the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar on 12.06.2018, which is

pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she

is living with her mother at Katihar as the father had died and has

no income to maintain herself. It was submitted that her son is

residing at Purnia and studying in school and the cost of education

comes to around Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was submitted that the

opposite party suffers from mental disorder and used to behave

abnormally with the petitioner and was also torturing her. Learned

counsel submitted that the opposite party was employed in the

Indian Navy, but was given retirement on medical ground because

of his unfit mental condition in November, 2011. Learned counsel

further submitted that fact of him suffering from mental illness has

been admitted by the opposite party himself in the pleadings in the

Matrimonial Case filed by him. It was contended that the opposite

party is financially solvent earning Rs. 50,000/- from his pension

from the Navy and also the emoluments from the State of Bihar

being engagement in the Health Department and further that he

runs a dance school at Darbhanga from where also he gets Rs.

50,000/- per month, and thus, the total income comes to Rs.
Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
3/6

1,00,000/- per month. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Reena Bahri vs. Ajay Bahri reported as (2002)

10 SCC 136, has held that the wife having a small child residing at

Bombay and there being nobody to accompany her to Delhi as also

that other proceedings were already there in Bombay which the

husband had to defend, the Court had allowed such transfer

petition. He also relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in

SectionSmirti Singh vs. Anupam Ranjan reported as 2011(2) PLJR

989, where despite the husband opposing the prayer for transfer on

the ground that he will meet the travel expenses of the wife and

that he was apprehending danger to his life from brother of the

wife, the Court had held that payment of travel expenses by

husband is not sufficient to meet the inconveniences which the

wife will have to face while coming from Madhepura to Patna and

had, thus, transferred the case.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that

the behaviour of the petitioner was such that it resulted in

depression to the opposite party due to which he had to seek

psychiatric treatment. It was submitted that after retirement, he

came to Darbhanga but the petitioner refused to live with him and

used to misbehave with his relatives. It was further submitted that

the opposite party is paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the petitioner
Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
4/6

and, thus, she is having sufficient money to contest the case at

Darbhanga. Further, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in SectionSuneha Rani vs. Sanjeev

Kumar dated 12.01.2016 in TA No. 949 of 2015 in which it has

been held that mere inconvenience to attend the Court at another

place cannot be a ground for transfer and the application for such

transfer has been dismissed. For the same proposition, he relied

upon another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

SectionSunita vs. Ashok Lamba dated 27.01.2016 in TA No. 19 of 2016.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds that a case for interference has been made out.

7. The petitioner not having any source of income and

also her father having died, clearly is in a disadvantageous

position. This would, thus, be a major consideration for the Court

to consider her convenience. Further, the fact that the opposite

party was blessed with a child and after retirement from service in

the Indian Navy in the year 2011, the divorce case having been

filed only in the year 2017, clearly demonstrates that the opposite

party had no genuine and real grievance against the petitioner.

Moreover, his bona fide is also suspect for the reason that for six

years after returning to Darbhanga, when his wife and son were
Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
5/6

not with him, he took no steps, either to be reunited with the wife

or for custody of the son. Thus, his plea of torture by the petitioner

has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Court also finds that in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reena Bahri (supra) and of a co-

ordinate Bench in Smirti Singh (supra) fully covers the issue in

favour of the petitioner.

8. As far as the decisions relied upon by learned counsel

for the opposite party of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Suneha Rani (supra) and Sunita (supra), the Court would only

indicate that the same do not help the opposite party in any way

for the reason that it has only been held that inconvenience of the

wife should not be the sole factor. In the present case, the Court

has arrived at the conclusion that there are many other

accompanying facts and circumstances which favour the petitioner

and support her contention that for the ends of justice, the pending

Matrimonial case filed by the opposite party at Darbhanga be

transferred to Katihar.

9. For reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed. The

Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 11 of 2017, pending before the

Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga stands

transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.

Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019
6/6

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga is directed to

transmit the records of the case to the Principal Judge, Family

Court, Katihar within two weeks from the date of production of a

copy of this order before him positively. Upon receipt of the

records, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar shall give a

new number to the case and the same shall proceed in accordance

with law.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T

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

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

STUDY REPORTS

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