SMT. SEEMA @ VISHNU Vs. SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of Case No.194/2014, Suresh Vs. Smt. Seema @ Vishnu, filed by the respondent-husband under Sec. 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, from Family Court, Pali to Family Court, Ajmer or Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing with her father at Kishangarh (Ajmer) and she being a female, it would be difficult for her to travel to Pali quite often in the proceedings and on all occasions her aged father has to accompany her and it is difficult for her to take her father on every hearing. Counsel further submits that as many as four other cases u/ ., Domestic Violence Act and 494-A are pending at Kishangarh and therefore, the convenience is required to be seen of the petitioner who would suffer on account of travel to Pali as aforesaid. He contends that it would be convenient for the respondent also as all other matters between the parties are pending at Kishangarh and he would attend the proceedings in the said cases so also the present proceedings. He further contends that the petitioner is suffering from the disease of TB and even otherwise, being patient of such a disease, it is not possible for her to go to Pali which is at distance of 150 Kms. and return back at odd hours. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Sarita @ Samptai (Smt.) Vs. Dhan Raj.: 2008(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1283 and Aketa (Smt.) Vs. Anurag Joshi: 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1483.

(3.) Per-contra, counsel for the respondent contends that the case is pending at Family Court, Pali within jurisdiction of Principal Seat, Jodhpur and this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the instant transfer application. She further submits that almost all matters are concluded and nothing remains to be considered at Kishangarh and merely because the petitioner happens to be a female, no right is conferred in her favour without just and proper cause to transfer the matter from Pali to Kishangarh. She also contends that illness as claimed by the petitioner about TB is no illness and it is just a mere claim. Counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma: 2005(11) SCC 535; Anindita Das Vs. Sprijit Das: (2006) 9 SCC 197 and Teena Chhabra Vs. Manish Chhabra: (2004) 13 SCC 411.