NAYANA Vs. KAVINDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that this is not a fit case for transfer on the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the marriage between the parties took place in the year 1999. The petitioner left the non-petitioner on 30.1.1999. The non-petitioner served a notice upon the petitioner on 12.2.2000 and, thereafter. the petitioner lodged the FIR. It is also submitted that the respondent is prepare to bear the expense of travelling of the petitioner from Liclaipur to Jhalawar and. therefore, there is no reason for transfer of the case from the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar to the Family Court, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that since the case at Jhalawar is pending in the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar and not in the family Court, therefore, the petitioner need not to remain present on every date of hearing, therefore, she will not suffer any inconvenience. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme C Dun delivered in the case of Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha v. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha, AIR 1997 SC 1036 and judgment of this Court delivered it the case of Smt. Chand Kanwar v. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, 1997 30 kb, LC (Raj.) UC 594 in support of contention that when the respondent is prepare to make the payment of the expenses of travelling of the petitioner then there is no reason for transfer of the case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Archana Singh v. Alok Pratap Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 744 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that offer to pay the travelling expenses to the petitioner wife is not a substitute for the difficulties which she will have to undertake for contesting the case at Thane all the way from Patna.