VIMLA Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1, who is the wife of the non -petitioner has moved this application seeking transfer of the proceedings, pending before the Family Court at Ajmer relating to the custody of the petitioner's minor son 'Tinku' (Vaibhav), inter alia, contending that the said minor son was born on 24.12.1992 at Jaipur and the petitioner No. 1 has separated from the society of non - petitioner (husband) w.e.f. 20.6.1992. It has been further contended that ever since then the petitioner has been residing alongwith the minor son within the jurisdiction of this Court at Jaipur. In the reply the non -petitioner has not disputed either the factum of marriage with the petitioner at Jaipur on 17.1.1992 nor the birth of the minor son out of the wedlock on 24.12.1992 and that ever since his birth, the said minor is living with his mother i.e. the petitioner.

(2.) IN view of the differences between the parties, an application was filed by the non -petitioner (husband), claiming custody of the minor in Family Court at Ajmer Under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The said application was contested by the petitioner, by contending before the Family Court that at the time of moving the said application, the non -petitioner No. 1 was residing at Jaipur and was in service in New Bank of India, Branch Johari Bazar, Jaipur. In the present petition itself, it has been specifically contended by the petitioner that the non petitioner is serving in New Bank of India, Jaipur and, therefore, there should be no difficulty to the non -petitioner No. 1, if the case is transferred from the Family Court, Ajmer to Family Court, Jaipur. In the reply on behalf of the non - petitioners, it has been contended that he was beaten by the family members of the petitioner and he is so much afraid that he cannot live in Jaipur inspite of the fact that he is at present working in Jaipur. Hence the factum of residence of the non -petitioner at Jaipur, so as to make himself amenable to the jurisdiction of Family Court at Jaipur, has not been disputed. The only grievance of the respondent is that he is subjected to harassment. In my considered opinion, this is a vague allegation, which is not substantiated by any evidence. If it is so, then nothing prevented or would prevent the non -petitioner from moving to the law enforcing agencies for seeking protection for himself and his family members, at any stage during the pendency of proceedings before the Competent Court.

(3.) UNDER Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this is competent to withdraw the aforesaid proceedings, which are pending before the Family Court at Ajmer and transfer it to the Family Court, Jaipur. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Ajmer in Case No. 9/94, titled : Ramesh Chand v. F.L. Panwar and Anr., Under Section 10 of the Act, deserve to be withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Jaipur. The proceedings are accordingly transferred from the Family Court, Ajmer to the Family Court, Jaipur. The application is accordingly allowed.