SMT. BHAVNA Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Sec. 24 Code of Civil Procedure have been filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of proceedings under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') filed by respondent as well as proceedings initiated by the petitioner herself under Sections 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act of 1890') from the Court of District Judge, Sirohi to the Court of Additional District Judge, Balotra.

(2.) It is, inter alia, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 498-A IPC, wherein, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Balotra. As the children of the petitioner were with the respondent, the petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 10 and 25 of the Act of 1890 before the District Judge, Sirohi for custody of the said children. It is submitted that the distance between Sirohi and Balotra is 160 Kms. and there is nobody available to accompany the petitioner for her journey from Balotra to Sirohi and vice versa and, therefore, the proceedings be transferred from Sirohi to Balotra.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petitions filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner chose to leave the matrimonial home and, as such, the respondent was forced to lodge FIR, wherein, in her statement, the petitioner has conceded that she does not want to stay at the matrimonial home or with her parents and she wants to stay at her sister's home only. It is further submitted with reference to the statement of the petitioner that in overall fact situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any difficulty in coming from Balotra to Sirohi. It is further submitted that the children of the parties are aged about 4 and 6 years and for the proceedings under the Act of 1890, the children would have to move from one place to another, which would not be convenient for their studies and, therefore, the petitions filed by the petitioner deserve to be dismissed.