IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1045 of 2017
Smita Bijeyant Mahan, wife of Sri Ahish Kumar, daughter of Sri Mahendra
Pratap Singh, at present- Resident of Mohalla- East Mohan Bigha, Kali Asthan,
Dehri-on- Sone, P.O.- Dehri, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.
…. …. Petitioner
Ashish Kumar, Son of Sri Dhirendra Prasad, Resident of Uday Villa, Chaitanaya
Nagar (Bhagawat Nagar), P.O. P.S.- Agam Kuan, District- Patna.
…. …. Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Senior Advocte
Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
The present petition has been filed for transfer of Matrimonial
(Divorce) Case No. 108 of 2017 filed by the opposite party pending in
the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna to the Court of
learned Principal Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are
that the parties were married on 30.01.2015, but due to ill-treatment
and torture inflicted upon the petitioner by the opposite party and his
family members, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home at
Patna. She has filed Complaint Case No. 84C/2016 before the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Dehri-on-sone, Rohtas alleging offences under Section
498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act in which cognizance has
been taken for the offence under Section 498A IPC. It is further stated
Patna High Court MJC No.1045 of 2017 dt.18-08-2017 2
that the petitioner is a B.B.A. degree holder, but having left private job
she is unemployed. She has therefore, filed Maintenance Case under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of
the petitioner is unable to maintain the petitioner as he is also un-
employed and the petitioner has no means to appear and contest the
subject divorce case at Patna from her parental house situated at
4. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party resists the transfer petition. He invites attention to
para 5 of the counter affidavit controverting the statement of the
petitioner that she is un-employed. As a matter of fact the petitioner
has been variously employed from time to time and at present holds a
job at Delhi. Earlier she was holding a job in Uttar Pradesh and after
resigning she got another job at Noida as Data Analyst at E.B. Saving
Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
5. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the
materials on record, this Court finds the transfer petition to be devoid
of any merit. The specific statement made in para 5 of the counter
affidavit filed by the opposite party has not been denied in the
rejoinder filed by the petitioner and it is therefore, clear that she has
incorrectly stated in the main petition that she is un-employed. If the
Patna High Court MJC No.1045 of 2017 dt.18-08-2017 3
petitioner herself is residing at Delhi where she is engaged in a job and
the opposite party is admittedly working at Jalandhar no purpose
would be served in transferring the Matrimonial Divorce Case to
Rohtas as sought. It is also relevant to note that the opposite party has
filed Cr. Misc. No. 35923 of 2017 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for
quashing the Complaint Case No. 84C/2016, inter alia, on the ground
that the concerned Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.
This Court takes exception to the misleading statement made by the
petitioner to the effect that she is un-employed, but however, refrains
from imposing any cost.
6. The petition stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J)
CAV DATE N.A.