SADHANA SHARMA Vs. BINOD KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Sadhana Sharma, the wife has preferred this application for transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 12/96 from the Court of District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah to the Court of District Judge (Matrimonial) at Patna.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her marriage was solemnised with opposite party Binod Kumar Sharma on 22nd May, 1978 at Mohalla Gaighat, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, district -Patna at the residence of the father of petitioner. After her marriage, the opposite party took her to his house at Khagaul, district -Patna, where she started living with the opposite party and the in laws. Initially, the conjugal life was happy which resulted in birth of a daughter on 14th October ' 79, followed by the birth of 2nd daughter on 16th April ' 83 and a son born on 22nd October ' 84. It is alleged that the opposite party and her in laws subsequently started torturing and pressurising the petitioner to bring money from her Maike, her father having not given sufficient dowry during the marriage. Initially, the petitioner fulfilled some of the demands to avoid torturing, but when the demand grew beyond the limit and beyond the capacity of her father, there developed a bitterness in their relationship. The opposite party started torturing and pressurising the petitioner in such manner that her father had to lodge F.I.R. on 17th June '87 in the Khagaul Police Station being Khagaul P.S. Case No. 34/87 which is pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Patna for trial. Ultimately, because of such torture and as she apprehended danger to her life, her father had to take her along with three children in her Maike at Gaighat, Patna City. In a maintenance case, the Family Court at Patna allowed a meagre sum of Rs. 700/ -for her maintenance as well as maintenance of her three children. Suddenly, she came to know of the present Matrimonial Case No. 12/96, when she received notice for dissolution of marriage from the Court of District Judge at Arrah, which has been preferred by the opposite party. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she never lived with the opposite party at Arrah and the statement made in the petition for divorce that she lived with the opposite party in Shital Tola at Arrah, is wrong and far from truth. Such stand has been taken by the opposite party to create territorial jurisdiction of the matrimonial case at Arrah to harass the petitioner with oblique motive and mala fide intention. While the petitioner has raised apprehension of threat on her life in going to Arrah in attending the case, she has taken plea that she will not be in a position to attend the same on each and every day as she has been allowed a meagre sum of Rs. 700/ -.per month for maintenance of her and three children.

(3.) FROM the stand taken by the parties, I find that there is a disputed question of fact relating to last residence of petitioner and the opposite party. However, it has not been disputed that the marriage was solemnised at Patna. The opposite party has also not disputed that the petitioner is being allowed a mere sum of Rs. 700/ - per month for maintenance of her and three children, one of whom is major. The petitioner being a lady cannot move to Arrah without an attendant and thereby is to incur sufficient amount for attending the Court at Arrah each and every day, which may not be possible in view of meagre amount of Rs. 700/ - per month as being paid by the opposite party to the petitioner.