BHAKTI SHARMA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR UDENIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for transfer of Suit No. 124 of 1988 (Mahendra Kumar Udenia v. Smt. Bkakti Sharma) pending in the Family Court, Jhansi either to the Family Court, Gwalior or Guna (M.P.).

(2.) The petitioner is the wife and the opposite party is the husband. They were married on 22nd June, 1988 according to Hindu rites. Then, after expiry of one and a half months of the marriage, the opposite party filed Original Suit No. 124 of 1988 under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the District Court at Jhansi on 19.8.1988 for declaration of the marriage of the applicant with the opposite party as a nullity on the ground that (the applicant was suffering from leucoderma. The applicant moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance and expenses for contesting the suit. Meanwhile since the Family Court was established in Jhansi the suit stood transferred to that Court from the Court of District Judge, Jhansi. According to the applicant the provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act conferred the jurisdiction of entertaining a suit for dissolution of marriage to the District Court within the limits of whose ordinary civil jurisdiction marriage was solemnised or the respondent at the time of presentation of the application resides or the parties to marriage last resided together. Hence it has been argued that according to the allegations in the suit itself as the marriage was solemnised in Gwalior within the jurisdiction of District Court, Gwalior (M.P.), the suit could be filed at Gwalior. Hence the Courts at Gwalior have also jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The applicant is residing at present in Guna (M.P.) since the time when the suit was presented. Thus, Guna District Court has also jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The District Courts at Jhansi, Guna and Gwalior have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to the applicant Gwalior is only 100 Kilometers from Jhansi and it would be convenient for both the parties to contest the suit there. The applicant is dependent on her father who has nominal income. She cannot bear the expenses of travelling from Guna to Jhansi which is about 200 Kilometers from Jhansi. It has further been alleged that apart from inconvenience the opposite party has threatened to kill the applicant not only outside Jhansi Courts but even in presence of the Family Court Judge, hence she apprehends that she will be murdered and, therefore, she cannot pursue the case at Jhansi. With these allegations the present application has been moved.

(3.) In the counter affidavit these allegations have been denied. It has further been alleged that the transfer application has been moved to delay the proceedings and to harass the opposite patty. In fact, the opposite party never threatened the applicant. On the contrary it was the applicant who threatened the opposite party through one R.R. Purohit and Dr. Virendra to put the life of the opposite party in danger. The opposite party, therefore, lodged a First Information Report against those persons.