RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PREETI ARCHANA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Sri S. K. Verma. counsel for the applicant and Sri Vtvek Mishra. counsel for the respondent it appears thai the suit for divorce which was originally in Allahabad was transferred to Mainpuri. Mr. Verma contended that the entire bar was supporting the respondent and. therefore, he could not get any lawyer to contest the case at Mainpuri, ultimately it was dismissed in default and thereafter the application for restoration was also dismissed. All records have been made untraceable. He contends that the father of the respondent was one of the leading lawyer and very influential in Mainpuri and that two brothers of the respondent are also practicing lawyer in Mainpuri and, therefore, it was not possible for the applicant to get assistance at Mainpuri even any lawyer who had appeared on behalf of the applicant at Mainpuri, was also threatened, therefore, in such situation the present Suit No, 83 of 1993 filed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by the respondent should be transferred to Allahabad since it is not possible for the applicant to go and contest the suit at Mainpuri. He has also contended that the suit is not maintainable since there has been a decree of divorce between the parties. After the decree of divorce, the suit under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is not maintainable, since it is the wife who can maintain the suit. After the decree of divorce, the respondent cannot be treated as wife of the. applicant, to maintain such suit. He had also raised the question regarding the maintainability of the Suit No, 83 of 1993.

(2.) Mr. Vjvek Mishra, counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the father of the respondent is no more and two other brothers are living separately from the respondent. In the counter-affidavit, all such allegations raised and non-availability of counsel are denied. He has aiso pointed out that initially two of the counsel were representing the applicant. He has also contended that it is not on account of non-availability of lawyer, the divorce suit was dismissed. On the other hand, according to him, the petitioner had discontinued the suit for divorce at Mainpuri and had got a suit filed at Vellore and obtained a decree of divorce and, therefore, the applicant did not proceed with the suit for divorce at Mainpuri. Therefore, according to him. the application should be dismissed.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Verma. learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand contended that the submission of Mr. Mishra cannot be sustained and had repeated his submission giving rise to the making of this application for transfer. However, in his usual fairness, he had submitted that in the meantime a decree for divorce has since been obtained at Vellore by the applicant against the respondent and on the basis whereof he has raised the question of maintainability of the suit.