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