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