SUMAN LATA Vs. BRIJESH MANI TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 24, CPC at the instance of the wife-respondent in a Matrimonial Suit No. 143 of 1991 between Brijesh Mani Tripathi and Smt. Suman Lata, and the prayer made herein is that the above suit should be transferred from Gorakhpur to any other District.

(2.) The concerned suit was filed as far back as on 24.10.1991.Smt. Suman Lata, respondent in the suit, appeared on 17.4.1992, after publication of the notice in a Gazette although her father Ram Chandra Shukia appeared on 20.1.1992. It is denied that she had been living under the care of the father at the relevant time. She filed her written statement on 19.1.1993 and a date was fixed for reconciliation. The attempt of reconciliation failed on 10.2.1993 and issues were framed. The plaintiff's witness No. 1 was examined on 29.4.1993 in part. On the next date, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the respondent. It was once again adjourned on the next date, on the further next date, the matter was to be heard on 5.2.1993. On that date, the respondent Smt. Suman Lata made a prayer for allowing her to be represented through an Advocate. The application was allowed granting appearance through an Advocate not only for her but for the husband also and the matter was adjourned to 20.7.1993. Prior to that date, however, the present application was fled before the High Court and a stay order was recorded.

(3.) It is stated in the transfer application that on 5.7.1993 the wife, Suman Lata, had attended the Court at Gorakhpur and when they were returning to the bus stand, the husband plaintiff aided by some anti-social elements threatened them with dire consequences. It was further stated that a report was made to the police station and a copy of the report was sent to the District Magistrate, as also to the Senior Supdt. of Police by registered post. It was further stated that the applicant, Suman Lata had no source of earning and was totally dependent upon her father and there was none to support her. She pleaded that it was not possible for her to proceed to Gorakhpur to attend that suit. Not only in view of this financial stringency but also for the alleged incident of threat on 5.7.1993. She apprehended that the husband plaintiff would try to get the case lingering. Only on these two grounds, the transfer of the suit was prayed for from Gorakhpur to any other District.