SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Neetu Bhargava vs Gunwant Bhargav on 4 February, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 176/2017

Smt. Neetu Bhargava W/o Gunwant Bhargava D/o Late
Nekichand Bhargava, B/c Bhargava-Brahmin, R/o Ward No. 45,
Mahaveer Colony, Sanwatsar, Kishangarh, Dist. Ajmer Raj..

—-Petitioner
Versus
Gunwant Bhargav S/o Late Shree Daulataram Bhargav, B/c
Bhargava-Brahmin, R/o Before Shani Mandir, Bhargava Mohalla,
Merta City, Tehsil Merta, Distt. Nagaur Raj.

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

Order

04/02/2019

This petition under Section 24 CPC is filed by petitioner-wife

seeking transfer of Civil Misc. Case No.56/2017, pending before

Family Court, Merta to Family Court, Ajmer.

In the petition, it is, inter-alia, averred that petitioner is

having her permanent abode at Kishangarh and Family Court,

Ajmer is nearer to her residence vis-a-vis Family Court, Merta. It

is also averred that Merta is approximately 150 km from

Kishangarh. Learned counsel has also informed the Court that in

the petition for divorce filed by husband, petitioner-wife has filed

an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming

maintenance pendent lite, which is still pending consideration.

(2 of 2) [CTA-176/2017]

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

There remains no quarrel that in the event of transfer of the

case petitioner is required to attend proceedings before Family

Court, Ajmer, which is approximately 33 km away from

Kishangarh but then Merta Family Court too is not at a far of

distance. Distance is approximately 103 km. In these

circumstances, longevity of distance itself cannot be a plausible

ground for transferring the case because petitioner is required to

undertake journey for both the destinations.

While it is true that in matrimonial cases inconvenience of

wife deserves due credence but then when the petitioner can

travel from Kishangarh to Ajmer, there cannot be any doubt that

she would also travel to Merta to attend the Court proceedings.

Moreover, when the application of the petitioner under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending, it would not be appropriate

to transfer the case from Family Court, Merta to Family Court,

Ajmer.

In view thereof, no case is made out to transfer the Divorce

Petition.

Consequently, the petition is rejected.

(P.K. LOHRA),J

74-Bharti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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