RACHNA Vs. CHATRAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner Smt. Rachna is seeking transfer of the HMA Case No 151 -A/ 2012 pending before the Ilnd Additional District Judge. Ratlam to the Competent Court at Jhabua.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner Rachna was married to respondent Chatrapal Singh on 13.2.2005. However, due to matrimonial disputes she left the respondent/husband and the respondent/husband filed a suit under section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Ilnd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam by stating that the petitioner is living separately from the respondent for than two years without any reason The written -statement has been filed by the wife in the year 2011, however, the matter is not proceeding further. Counsel also urged that the earlier a suit of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent and the wife had compromised and started living with the respondent/husband. However, the respondent had again thrown her out. Counsel submitted that the applicant wife did not have any source of living and depended on her parents and it is very difficult for her to came on each and every date to attend the Court proceedings in Ratlam and it is a distance of 138 km. from Jhabua and the respondent is deliberately dillydallying the matter to harass the applicant wife. Hence, Counsel prayed that the application be allowed and an appropriate order be passed to transfer the H.M.A. Case No. 151 -A/2012 pending before the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Ratlam to the competent Court Jhabua. Counsel placed reliance on Ravinder Kaur v. Hitinder Singh: [AIR 2000 SC 3403( 1 )], whereby the wife is seeking transfer of the case from Chanidgarh to competent Court at Delhi and the apex Court had held that the application needed to be allowed in the interest of justice. Counsel further relied on Jyoti Bangde v. Sanjay Bangde [2010(4) MPLJ 391], whereby this High Court has held that the petitioner wife is not in a position to go to the Court at Sagar since small children depended on her and the applications were allowed since convenience of the provisions are meant in favour of the party in whose favour the balanced convenience appears. Counsel prayed that the same benefit be granted to the present applicant also.

(3.) CONSIDERING above submissions, I find that the apex Court had time and again held that the application should be allowed in favour of the wife if it is inconvenient and for some reasons the applicant is prevented from appearing before the trial Court and also to prevent undue hardship to the wife and hence the application be allowed.