PRATIBHA MISHRA Vs. MUKESH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred by the applicant/wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the Hindu Marriage Case No. 218-A/07 filed by the Respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Family Court Satna, from such Court to the Family court of Umaria.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant got married with the Respondent long before on 22.5.02 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. Subsequent to marriage, on arising some differences between them, under compulsion, the applicant is residing separately at Beersingpurpali. At the instance of the applicant, a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance was also filed in the Court of Beersingpurpali district Umaria which has been allowed on dated 16.1.09. As per further submission, the applicant is not able to defend her case at Satna because the Respondent is having connections with the antisocial elements of Satna and, in such premises, there is apprehension in the mind of the applicant that at any moment, on going to Satna for defending the case, she may be killed by the Respondent. Besides this, the transfer is also prayed on the ground of distance of both the places i.e near about 200 KM. So, being woman, it is not possible for her to go all-alone for defending such case at Satna. As per further averments she is also under apprehension that the fair trial could not be held at Satna because she has to face the undue pressure of the Respondent on every date at such place. With these averments the applicant has filed this petition.

(3.) In reply of the Respondent all the aforesaid grounds stated in the petition for transferring the case are specifically denied. It is also stated that the applicant being employee of the education department, is working as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II at some place of district Umaria which is only 50 KM far away from district Satna where she is residing with the family of her real uncle, aunt and maternal uncle. She is in a position to defend the case conveniently at Satna. It is also stated that in compliance of the order of the trial court, Respondent is regularly paying her the travelling and other expenses to defend the case at Satna and prayer for dismissal of the petition is made.