SHALINEE DUBEY Vs. ABHISHEK TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is residing at District Etawah. She has also filed Case No. 301 of 2019, under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C and Case No. 227 of 2019, under Sec. 12 of Domestic Violence Act at there. He next submitted that only to harass the applicant, opposite party has filed Divorce Petition No. 46 of 2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya. He further submitted that while she was visting at Auraiya along with her father, she was misbehaved and threatened to face dare consequences. For which, applicant has also moved an application before the Senior Superintedent of Police, Auraiya. Lastly, he submitted that under such facts and circumstances, direction may be issued to Court below to transfer her case from Auraiya to Etawah.

(3.) Mr. Shreesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant is still residing at District Auraiya, which may be verified from the correspondence between the applicant and S.S.P., Auraiya. Further, pursuant to her alleged application before S.S.P., Auraiya, no FIR has been lodged. He next submitted that in the divorce petition, applicant has also filed written statements and testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have also been recorded. He further submitted that during the pendency of divorce petition, applicant has filed an application under Sec. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1955) for pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses, which was partly allowed vide order dtd. 6/4/2021. Opposite party is paying the litigation expenses to the applicant as directed by the Court below vide order dtd. 6/4/2021. He also submitted that except the testimony of defence witnesses, nothing remains to be recorded for adjudication of the case. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta reported in 2021 9 SCC 730 decided on 24/9/2021 in which Apex Court has taken the view that once the application under Sec. 24 of Act, 1955 is allowed and case is at the verge of final decision, no interference is required.