PUNAM PURSHO Vs. PUTSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard This is a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been filed by the applicant/wife for transfer of suit/proceedings for divorce pending before the Court of IXth Additional District Judge, Indore as Divorce Case No. 174 of 2000

(2.) The applicant has filed this application on the ground that the marriage between the parties took place on 20th November, 1995 at Indore and thereafter out of the wedlock one son Sanjay was also born but the non- applicant/husband deserted the applicant/wife when she was pregnant and now at present she is residing at Chhatarpur along with her father The further submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the father of the applicant is old and infirm and a retired person aged about 65 years and the distance between Chhatarpur to Indore is around 525 kms, therefore, she cannot come on each and every hearing along with a small child to attend the hearing. The further submission is that to reach Indore she has to undertake a long jour ney including one night and there is no body in the family to-come along with the applicant Therefore, it is very difficult to perform such a long journey safely. In support of the submis sion, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur v Hitinder Singh, reported in 2000 Apradh Nirnay Journal 286

(3.) In reply the submission of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/ husband is that the marriage took place at Indore but the child does not belong to the husband and, therefore, he has filed this petition on the ground of cruelty as well as on the ground that the applicant is living in adultery and having a son not out of the wedlock of the non-applicant but with some other person, namely Radhamohan Khare who is the brother-in-law of the applicant. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the non-applicant is that an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also pending for consideration in which she has claimed the expenses of attending the hearing along with one attendant and she can attend the Court very well and she may also engage the services of some Lawyer and also claim the amount of legal expenses. He relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Nirmala Devi v Ravindra Singh.