SMT. NEETU KUMARI D/O SHRI KAILASH KHATRI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SALVI Vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SALVI S/O SHRI MAGAN LAL SALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides on the transfer petition moved on behalf of wife petitioner Smt. Neetu Kumari whereby she prays to transfer Civil Misc. Case No.552/2016 filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Family Court, Bundi to the court of Additional District Judge, Bali or Family Court, Pali.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage between the parties took place in the month of February, 2015. The wife petitioner was shunted out from her matrimonial home in the month of December, 2015 and she is residing with her parents. She is working as a Government Teacher at Samdari District Pali. She has to go to attend the case pending before the Family Court, Bundi which causes inconvenience to her. It has also been alleged that an FIR No.184/2016 has been filed by wife petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406, 323, 326 and 120-B IPC which is pending investigation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the only ground mentioned in the petition for transfer of the matter is convenience of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that no issue born out of matrimonial wedlock. The petitioner is an educated and employed lady working as a Government Teacher. It cannot be presumed that she cannot undertake journey or move out of her house. The ground of convenience simpliciter is not a ground on which the case pending before the Family court, Bundi is required to be transferred to the courts situated at Bali or Pali. He has referred to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das reported in 2005 Law Suit (SC) 1148 wherein the ground of convenience has not been considered as a sufficient ground to transfer the case.