PRIYANKA ARYA Vs. ABHISHEK ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking transfer of Case No. RCS No.272-A/2018 from Bhopal to Indore. The applicant/ wife contends that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C is filed by her at Indore. The applicant's aged father is critically ill. She has to take care of her father and it is difficult for her to move from Indore to Bhopal to attend the proceedings of the said case.

(2.) Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, (2000) 10 SCC 589, Simi Mehrotra Vs. Anil Mehrotra, (2002) 10 SCC 70, Paramjeet Kaur Vs. Dharampal Singh, (2007) 2 MPHT 344, Shalini Amit Mithrani Vs. Amit Mithrani,2008 11 Laws(SC) 43 , Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2015) 11 SCC 769 and Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav Vs. Ravibhai Govindbhai Rav, (2017) 6 SCC 785 and contended that convenience of wife is the paramount consideration for deciding the question of transfer of a matrimonial matter. He further submits that one brother of the applicant is residing abroad and the other is living separately. The applicant is not getting any help from them.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Kunal Thakre, counsel for the respondent submits that applicant and respondent were married on 17.04.2016 at Bhopal. The respondent used to work at Pune. Hence, initially they resided at Pune. The documents are filed as Annexure R/5 and R/6. The applicant was in employment. During her employment, she used to visit various cities including Hyderabad, Bangaluru, Pune, Delhi, Indore etc. She is a qualified woman who can travel from Indore to Bhopal which is very well connected. There is no allegation of threat by the present respondent. The applicant is residing in a joint family and she has two real brothers. He further submits that respondent's father is critically ill. He is suffering from cancer, undergone operation of angioplasty, removal of bladder and prostrate gland. The mother of the respondent is also suffering from critical ailments like hypertension and chronic arthritis. The respondent is the only bred winner and the person to take care of his aged parents. Thus in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the application may be dismissed. He placed reliance on Amandeep Goyal Vs. Yogesh Rani, (2016) AIR SC 4833 and Kirti Sharma Vs. Devesh Sharma, (2017) 3 MPLJ 34.