VIJAY LAXMI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application has been filed by the applicant, who is said to be wife of the respondent Santosh Kumar, and the facts brought on record by the learned counsel for the applicant is that both got married at Sambhar Lake District Jaipur on 24.4.2012 as per customs and traditions. It is further contended that the applicant is residing at Sambhar Lake and the respondent has filed divorce petition before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer, which is at a distance of about 150 km and it is further claimed that the applicant is doing nothing and is mainly dependant upon her parents, and the applicant would be incurring unnecessary expenditure in going to and fro and at times may have to stay overnight in case the matter is not reached and listed a day later. It is also brought to the notice of court that other cases, like under Section 498A, 406 I.P.C. as well as 125 CrPC are pending at Sambhar Lake and it would be convenient for the respondent as well to appear before the court of Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur.

(2.) None appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service.

(3.) In my view, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, which have been noticed by this court, and not controverted or objected to by the respondent by non appearance, since the applicant being a female and particularly dependant on her parents and not doing anything, it would be just and proper to transfer the case pending before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Beawar, District Ajmer to the court of Additional District Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, particularly taking into consideration that other cases between the parties, namely under Section 498A, 406 I.P.C. and 125 CrPC, are being conducted at Sambhar Lake, and it would be more convenient for the respondent to attend all the cases including the matter filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, at one place.