SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Mamta vs Dharmendra Kumar Chouhan on 8 September, 2017

S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 78 / 2017
Smt. Mamta w/o Shri Dharmendra Kumar Chouhan D/o Shri
Madan Lal, age 29 years, by caste Jeengar (Mochi), r/o Neem
Chabutra, Kayasth Mohallah, Bhata Gwadi, Ajmer
Dharmendra Kumar Chouhan s/o Shri Amarchand Chouhan, age
33 years, by caste Jeengar (Mochi), r/o 9/414, near Vasundhara
Hospital, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Raju Chainan
For Respondent(s) : Mr M.K. Trivedi

This Transfer Application under sec.24 CPC has been filed for

transfer of Civil Original Suit No.152/2017 (Dharmendra Chouhan

v. Smt Mamta, pending before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.

Briefly stated, marriage between the parties was solemnized

on 16.02.2013 at Ajmer. After marriage, the petitioner lived in her

matrimonial home at Jodhpur. It was contended that after the

marriage, the respondent treated her with cruelty on ground of

demand of dowry. In the mean time, a daughter born on

07.04.2014. On account of harassment and cruelty, she informed

her parents. She was forced to leave her matrimonial home.

Presently she is living with her parents at Ajmer with minor

daughter. The respondent has filed a divorce petition under sec.13

of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur.
(2 of 5)

The petitioner filed an application under sec.125 CrPC before

Family Court, Ajmer. The petitioner contended that due to cruelty

and beating given by the husband, she fears that she has to face

dire consequences if she appears on dates of hearing before the

Family Court, Jodhpur.

Notices were issued to the respondent. Power has been filed
on behalf of sole respondent. Heard learned counsel for the

The petitioner sought transfer of Divorce Petition pending

before the Family Judge No.1, Jodhpur to Family Court, Ajmer on

the ground that the lady with young child of 3 years has to travel

all alone from Ajmer to Jodhpur, which is more than 250 kms and

she fears dire consequences because of previous ill-treatment and

cruelty committed by the respondent. It was also contended that

the respondent is appearing in proceedings under sec.125 CrPC,

which is pending at Ajmer, so he will not have any difficulty in

coming to Ajmer if the divorce petition is transferred to Ajmer.

The plea of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent.

He placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court rendered in

Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam: 2017 (1) WLC (SC)

660 and contended that one can not ignore the problem faced by

a husband if transfer is made on genuine difficulties faced by the

wife. It was thus observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court:

The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a
place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not
always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be
appropriate that available technology of video conferencing
is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and
there is no place which is convenient to both the parties.
(3 of 5)

The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that:

“… We understand that in every district in the country
video conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever
such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilized and all
the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative
instructions to regulate the use of video conferencing for
certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of
the parties resides outside court’s jurisdiction is one of such
categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a
request for use of video conference, proceedings may be
conducted on video conferencing, obviating the needs of the
party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has
directed recording of evidence by video conferencing.

The other difficulty faced by the parties living beyond
the local jurisdiction of the court is ignorance about
availability of suitable legal services. Legal Aid Committee of
every district ought to make available selected panel of
advocates whose discipline and quality can be suitably
regulated and who are ready to provide legal aid at a
specified fee. …..

The advancement of technology ought to be utilized
also for service on parties or receiving communication from
the parties…”

Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that:

“We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue
certain directions which may provide alternative to seeking
transfer of proceedings on account of inability of a party to
contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary
residence on the ground that if proceedings are not
transferred it will result in denial of justice.

We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody
matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or
arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage,
wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside
the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings
are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of
justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that
(4 of 5)

summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in
denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may
be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:-

i) Availability of video conferencing facility.

ii) Availability of legal aid service.

iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in
terms of Order XXV CPC.

iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which
litigant from out station may communicate.”

He placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in

S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.139/2016 (Neelam v.

Dinkar Jangir) decided on 21.02.2017. He further placed

reliance on judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Transfer

Application No.69/2016 (Smt Suman v. Bhanu Pratap

Singh Daiya) decided on 18.04.2017, wherein the Court

observed that:

“… the Court has ample powers to award expenses for
attending the case as well as reasonable amount as day to
day expenses for attending each date of hearing along
with litigation expenses if claimed for by the petitioner.”

In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he does not require travel expenses or

lodging/boarding expenses. He expressed that in view of

previous conduct of the respondent, when she was beaten and

treated with cruelty on account of demand of dowry, she fears

that something wrong may happen if she appears before the

court at Jodhpur. She has to travel all alone with three-year old

child. The counsel for the respondent also argued that the

petitioner does not require to appear on each date of hearing

and she may engage a counsel to contest the divorce case
(5 of 5)

before the Family Judge, Jodhpur and the facility of video

conferencing may be availed for recording her statement and

other witnesses. The facility of video conferencing is available at

both places, at the District Court Ajmer as well as at the District

Court Jodhpur.

In view of this and in light of observations of the Apex

Court, this transfer petition is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed. The transfer petition is accordingly dismissed.



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
MyNation Times Magzine

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


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