BINDUBEN BRIJESHBHAI POPAT Vs. BRIJESH PRAVINKUMAR POPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant -wife for an appropriate order to transfer the proceedings of HMP No. 78/2011 pending in the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gondal or to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, Rajkot.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the applicant that the applicant -wife has been driven out without any justifiable cause by the opponent -husband and she was ill -treated by her husband, and, therefore, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house in the year 2009 and is residing with her parents at Gondal. The opponent -husband has filed HMP No. 78/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the applicant in the Family Court at Ahmedabad, which is approximately 250 kms. away from Gondal. It is submitted that the opponent -husband has also filed one application under the Hindu Guardian and Wards Act in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Gondal, being Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28/2011. It is the case on behalf of the applicant that it will not be possible for the applicant -wife to attend the proceedings of HMP No. 78/2011 at the Family Court, Ahmedabad on each and every date of adjournment physically. It is submitted that the applicant is suffering from asthama, thyroid and is also having problem of high blood pressure. It is submitted that the applicant is having a minor daughter aged 8 years and is serving as a teacher in the school to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. It is submitted that if on each and every date of adjournment the applicant is required to attend the Family Court at Ahmedabad she will lose her job and, therefore, it is requested to transfer the proceedings of HMP No. 78/2011 from the Family Court, Ahmedabad to the Competent Court at Gondal.

(3.) Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the opponent -husband. Even after the service of notice upon the opponent the matter was adjourned twice but the opponent has chosen to remain absent and has not appeared in the present proceedings and has not opposed the present application.