PRAGATI GOUTAM (SMT.) Vs. SUNIL GOUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -wife has preferred this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring R.C.S. No. 399/07 filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 from the Court of Principle Judge of Family Court, Bhopal to the Family Court, Betul. As per averments of the petition, the applicant got married with the respondent on dated 25.06.2002 in accordance with rites and rituals of the Hindu Community. Out of such wedlock they have been blessed with a male child who is now four years old residing with the applicant. Subsequent to birth of the child, on arising the matrimonial dispute between them, the respondent filed the aforesaid petition for divorce in the family court at Bhopal. As per further averments the applicant under compulsion is residing in her parental family at Betul. She did not have any source of earning for her livelihood and also to maintain the said child. Such child being four years of the age is suffering from the disease of mental retardation with Polio, as such he is handicapped. The father of the applicant has already expired and there is no other competent person available in her parental family who may accompany with her to travel for defending the case at Bhopal. Besides this no other competent person is available in her parental family to look after her aforesaid son in her absence. Bhopal is 200 k.m. far away from Betul. Thus, the applicant is not in a position to attend the every date of hearing at Bhopal. With these averments the aforesaid petition for transfer is preferred. The same is further supported by an affidavit of the applicant.

(2.) THE reply of the petition has not been filed on behalf of the respondent but by filling an application for vacating stay, some documents and papers showing the health condition of the respondent are annexed with it. In such application till some extent the averments made by the applicant in the petition are challenged. It is also prayed that looking to the health condition of the respondent he is not in a position to go and prosecute the case at Betul. By referring the facts stated in the petition the applicant's counsel said that considering her difficulties and inconvenience this petition be allowed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent stated that mere inconvenience of the applicant is not sufficient for transferring the case but the convenience of the respondent also requires some consideration on account of his health condition as stated in the interlocutory application filed for vacating the stay. Having heard the counsel after perusing the averments of the petition as well as IA No. 8347/08 for vacating the stay and the annexed paper, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.