SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Neetu Kumari vs Rajendra Kumar Salvi on 3 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
****
S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 2 / 2017
Smt. Neetu Kumari D/o Shri Kailash Khatri W/o Shri Rajendra
Kumar Salvi, Aged About 26 Years, Resident of Near Bus Stand,
Main Bazar Desuri, District Pali
—-Petitioner
Versus
Shri Rajendra Kumar Salvi S/o Shri Magan Lal Salvi, Resident of
Kagji Devara Bundi, Tehsil District Bundi
—-Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. C.S.Kotwani.
For Respondent : Mr.Bharat Shrimali.
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Judgment / Order
03/04/2017

Heard learned counsel for both the sides on the transfer

petition moved on behalf of wife petitioner Smt. Neetu Kumari

whereby she prays to transfer Civil Misc. Case No.552/2016 filed

under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the

Family Court, Bundi to the court of Additional District Judge, Bali

or Family Court, Pali.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage

between the parties took place in the month of February, 2015.

The wife petitioner was shunted out from her matrimonial home

in the month of December, 2015 and she is residing with her

parents. She is working as a Government Teacher at Samdari

District Pali. She has to go to attend the case pending before the
(2 of 3)
[CTA-2/2017]

Family Court, Bundi which causes inconvenience to her. It has also

been alleged that an FIR No.184/2016 has been filed by wife

petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406,

323, 326 and 120-B IPC which is pending investigation.

Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed

the prayer stating that the only ground mentioned in the petition

for transfer of the matter is convenience of the petitioner. Learned

counsel further submits that no issue born out of matrimonial

wedlock. The petitioner is an educated and employed lady working

as a Government Teacher. It cannot be presumed that she cannot

undertake journey or move out of her house. The ground of

convenience simpliciter is not a ground on which the case pending

before the Family court, Bundi is required to be transferred to the

courts situated at Bali or Pali. He has referred to a judgment

rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Anindita Das V/s Srijit Das

reported in 2005 Law Suit (SC) 1148 wherein the ground of

convenience has not been considered as a sufficient ground to

transfer the case.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions

raised at bar and mentioned in the petition moved on behalf of

the petitioner wife. It comes out that the wife petitioner is also a

working lady and the non-petitioner husband is also working as

Upper Divisional Clerk in Post Office Branch at Kishanganj District

Bundi. The petitioner has got no issue of whom, she is required to

take care. She is an employed lady having her own earning to

meet out expenses. In these circumstances, no case is made out

on which the case pending before the Family Court, Bundi is
(3 of 3)
[CTA-2/2017]

required to be transferred to the courts situated at Bali or Pali as

prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the

transfer application is dismissed accordingly.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.

Anil Singh/12

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

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

STUDY REPORTS

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