HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 111 / 2017
Smt Jyoti Sarangdawot D/o Arjun Singh Sarangdawot, Wife of
Kamlendra Singh, By Caste Rajput, Presently Resident of 27,
Chirag Complex, Paneriyo Ki Madri, Udaipur, District Udaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
Kamlendra Singh Son of Madan Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident
of Panwa, Presently Resident of 16, Adarsh Nagar, Bhinmal
Byepass Road, Jalore, District Jalore.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr G.S. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr T.S. Champawat
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
04/10/2017
This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for
transfer of Civil Case No.44/2017 (Kamlendra Singh v. Smt Jyoti
Sarangdawot), filed by the respondent under sec.13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, pending before District Judge, Jalore to the court of
Family Judge, Udaipur.
Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized
on 25.11.2007. During subsistence of the marriage, a son was
born to them on 29.09.2008. There arose some dispute between
husband and wife and relation between both deteriorated day-by-
day. The respondent and his family members harassed her for
demand of more dowry and committed cruelty upon her. A
criminal case was lodged against the respondent alleging demand
of dowry and cruelty, at the Women Police Station, Udaipur City,
(2 of 5)
[CTA-111/2017]
wherein after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against
the respondent-husband. The petitioner has also filed proceedings
for maintenance under sec.125 CrPC and a case under provisions
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before
competent court at Udaipur.
It was contended that the respondent started demanded
dowry and committed cruelty upon the petitioner and after some
time, turned out the petitioner from her matrimonial home, by
keeping her ornaments and dowry articles. The respondent has
filed an application under sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before
District Judge, Jalore against the petitioner in order to save his
skin in the aforesaid criminal case lodged by petitioner against
him. It was also contended that the relation between the parties
were not cordial and respondent threatened the petitioner that if
she will appear in the court at Jalore then she will have to face
severe consequences. It was also contended that it is not possible
for a lady to travel all alone a distance of more than 150-200 kms
from Udaipur to Jalore, particularly under the circumstances that
she has received threats from the respondent.
Notices were issued to the respondent and after service,
reply to the transfer application has been filed.
In the reply, it was contended that the petitioner made false
statement in para 4 regarding threatening by the answering
respondent. Said statement is incorrect, without any basis or proof
and with the intention to mislead the Hon’ble Court to create a
case in her favour. It is settled law that mere vague statement
without any factual basis can not be considered a valid reason for
(3 of 5)
[CTA-111/2017]
transfer of the case. It was further stated that as regard
contention that the petitioner is having no means to come to
Jalore, the petitioner is already getting sufficient amount of
Rs.6500/- under orders of the court for her maintenance from the
respondent. Further, Jalore is not 200 kms away but it is, in fact,
less than 150 kms from Udaipur. So also, the respondent is ready
and willing to pay the expenses incurred in attending the case at
Jalore. The petitioner wants to delay the divorce petition filed by
the answering respondent. The petitioner has no valid reason for
transfer of the Divorce Petition filed by the answering respondent.
It was also contended in the reply that merely on ground of
financial hardship, case filed before competent court can not be
transferred.
It was also contended that pendency of proceedings under
sec.125 CrPC and case filed under Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act have no effect over the divorce case. It was
also contended that the petitioner is an educated lady, having
sufficient means and thus, it can not be assumed that she can not
attend the court at Jalore which is less than 150 kms away. The
respondent is ready to provide expenses incurred in attending the
court at Jalore. It was further argued that the answering
respondent and petitioner lived together as husband and wife for
years at Jalore, all incidents of their married life happened in
Jalore, the incidences averred in the divorce petition are of Jalore
and thus, witnesses sought to be produced in the divorce case by
the answering respondent and also by petitioner will be from
Jalore. As such, if divorce petition is transferred to Udaipur, entire
(4 of 5)
[CTA-111/2017]
case of the answering respondent would be frustrated as it would
be inconvenient for the answering respondent to produce the
witnesses at Udaipur.
Heard the rival contentions of the parties.
In the present case, the petitioner has sought transfer of
Divorce Petition filed by the respondent before District Judge
Jalore to the Family Court at Udaipur, on the grounds of pendency
of one criminal case under secs.498A, 406 IPC at Udaipur and also
proceedings under sec.125 CrPC and a case under Domestic
Violence Act pending before competent court at Udaipur. Other
grounds taken by the petitioner was that she has received threat
from the respondent to face severe consequences if she appears
before the court at Jalore but no such incidence was referred by
the petitioner-wife where any threat was given by the husband to
deter her from appearing in the court at Jalore and only general
allegation was levelled.
The respondent while denying the averments made by the
petitioner-wife in the transfer petiton, contended that the
petitioner is receiving Rs.6500/- per month as maintenance in
proceedings under sec.125 CrPC and he is also ready to
compensate the petitioner-wife to bear the travel expenses for
herself and an escort. In such circumstances, the divorce petition
should not be transferred from Jalore to Udaipur.
In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on case
reported in 2005(11) SCC 446 {Gargi Konar v. Jagjeet
Singh}, in which case it was held that transfer can not be allowed
on such grounds and the respondent can be directed to pay for
(5 of 5)
[CTA-111/2017]
her and her companions, to fro and stay expenses on every
occasion on which she is required to travel for contesting the
proceedings. He also placed reliance on (1996) 11 SCC 96:
Kalpana Deviprakash Thakar (Smt) v. Dr Deviprakash
Thakar, holding that having regard to relevant factors and
undertaking of husband to bear travel expenses of wife and an
escort, transfer disallowed. He further placed reliance on 1990 0
Supreme (PH) 205: Veena Rani v. Parvinder Kumar, wherein the
transfer petition was disallowed by observing that no incidence
was referred by the wife where any threat was given by the
husband to deter her from appearing at the court.
In the present case also, no such incidence was referred
about threatening against attending divorce case at Jalore. Both
the parties lived after marriage at Jalore and so far evidence in
the divorce case is concerned, obviously witnesses would be from
Jalore. Otherwise she herself has to appear, close relation would
appear promptly, by which case can be adjudicated expeditiously.
Moreover, the respondent is ready willing to bear the travel
stay expenses for the petitioner and an escort.
In view of aforesaid, this Court finds no substance and merit
in the present transfer application and the same is dismissed.
(DR. VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR), J.
mma/37