HEERA DEVI Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR ROOP NARAYAN BAIRWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A transfer application has been filed by the wife on the ground that she is an illiterate woman residing in village Udala, Tehsil in District Dausa. According to her, she has filed two cases against the non-applicant/husband, namely under Sections 498A, 406 IPC read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and another case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Dausa. According to her, meanwhile the non-applicant/husband has filed a case for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Furthermore, according to her, since she is an illiterate woman living below the poverty line, it is difficult for her to travel from Dausa to Jaipur at a distance of 65 Kms. Moreover, since the non-applicant/husband is already attending the Courts at Dausa, whereas it is inconvenient for her to travel to Jaipur. Hence, her prayer is that the case for divorce which is pending before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur be transferred before the District Judge, Dausa. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay & Anr. [(2001) 10 SCC 41], Sunita V/s. Om Prakash [2004 WLC (Raj.) 257 (UC)], and Deepti Patidar Bohara V/s. Yogesh Kumar Patidar (S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.44/2009 ? decided on 22.11.2010).

(2.) ALTHOUGH notices have been issued, and the same have been served upon the respondent, but no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) MOREOVER, under Section 24 of the Act, the applicant is entitled to claim for maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. Obviously an application can be filed which takes care of any financial burden that she may incur in travelling from Dausa to Jaipur. Therefore, this application is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.