RAMPARIBAI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by tho plaintiff for transfer of Civil Suit No. 37-A/81 from the court of District Judge Betul to the court of District Judge, Chhindwara, Seoni of Jabalpur.

(2.) The non-applicant Ramesh Kumar is a process-server in the civil court Betul who has filed a suit Under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the applicant which is contested by the applicant. The said proceedings are at the evidence stage. The applicant had made a similar application earlier in this court being MCC No. 258/92 for transfer of the said proceedings from the district court Betul to some other court on the ground that she and her witnesses were being threatened by the non- applicant with dire consequences in case they appeared in the district court Betul against her. A report in the police was also made to this effect. The said MCC was decided by this court by order dated 23-3-83 by which the position for transfer was rejected firstly on the ground that there was no real danger or apprehension to the applicant and secondly an undertaking was given by the non-applicant that he will not create any obstacle in the way of the applicant in the said proceedings. By this present petition for transfer the applicant had made similar allegations against the non-applicant that the applicant and her witnesses are being threatened by the non- applicant with dire consequences whenever they go to Betul in the proceedings pending there for which a report has also been lodged in the police. This petition is resisted by Shri Khaskalam on behalf of the non- applicant.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the non-applicant in spite of the undertaking had created an obstacle on 14-9-1983 when the case was fixed before the trial Court. After hearing the counsel and going through the report dated 2-1-1984 sent by the District Judge, Betul. I am of the view that it is difficult to rely on the allegations advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that the non-applicant is threatening her as well as her witnesses. But it may be pointed out that not a single affidavit has been filed of any witness to show that there was any threat held by the non-applicant either to the applicant or to any of her witnesses This court by order dated 7-12-1983 had required the district Judge, Betul, to send the report and comments on the transfer petition of the applicant and the learned district Judge in his report dated 2-1-1934 has clearly stated that the presiding judge of the court in which the divorce proceedings are pending was on leave on 14-9-1983 and thereafter the case was fixed on 3-10-1983 and that there was nothing to support the allegation that the non-applicant was in any manner obstructing the proceedings. In these circumstances it is difficult to transfer the case on the mere allegation of the applicant which is not supported by any affidavit of independent person. This apart if the non-applicant had in fact obstructed her in the proceedings an application could have been moved before the court in which the divorce proceedings are pending, which was not done.