AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J
The present application under Section-24 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (for short the Code) is filed by the applicant-wife to transfer the Family
Suit No. 1922 of 2019 pending before the the Family Court, Ahmedabad to the Family Court, Surat.
Heard learned advocate Ms. Ketaki Jha for the applicant and learned Senior advocate Shri Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. Sujay Adeshra
for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant â€" wife and the respondent â€"husband came in contact through “Jeevansaathi.com†a
matrimonial site. That, after sometime the parties decided to get married and accordingly the parties tie the knot of marriage on 18.2.2017. That, after
marriage, the parties started to reside together and during the stay of the parties together, some problems between the parties have cropped up and
since more than a year, the parties are residing separately. That, respondent â€" husband has moved an application before the learned Family Court,
wherein it is specifically mentioned that the husband is presently posted at Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.
Learned advocate Ms. Ketki Jha for the applicant submitted that the respondent -husband has filed the family Suit No. 1922 of 2019 without any
cause of action. She further submitted that the respondent â€" husband has stated in the divorce petition that the applicant is a doctor â€" Dentist. She
also submitted that the since the applicant is working at the different job place, the applicant is not earning much as portrayed by the respondent. She
also contended that the parents of the applicant are senior citizen and mother of the applicant has severe medical issues such as thyroid,
hyperglycemia (highly diabetic), etc. and she also has a history of angiography done and having high blood pressure and therefore it is not possible for
the applicant to leave parents and time and again keep traveling for hearing at Ahmedabad and the respondent is presently posted at Uttar Pradesh.
She contended that the respondent â€" husband can take casual leave for attending the Court Proceedings. She also submitted that the proceedings of
Family Suit No. 1922 of 2019 pending with the Family Court, Ahmedabad may be transferred to the Family Court, Surat.
Learned Senior advocate Shri Percy Kavina for the respondent â€" husband has vehemently argued that in the present case, the facts and
circumstances are such, wherein the respondent â€" husband is a Wing Commander and his services are required for the nation and therefore it is
difficult for him to come from Ahmedabad to Surat at every time and date. He further submitted that the applicant is a Doctor by profession and
practicing as dentist, still however, the respondent â€" husband is paying Rs.16,800/- per month and therefore, also there is no necessity to transfer the
matter from Ahmedabad to Surat.
5.1 In the second limb of argument, learned Senior advocate Mr. Kavina argued that as soon as the divorce petition is filed, immediately the applicant
has filed the transfer application and therefore also the present application is not tenable. He further argued that the applicant is highly educated and
not illiterate and able to travel from Surat to Ahmedabad and there is no need to transfer the matter from Ahmedabad to Surat.
5.2 Learned Senior advocate has placed reliance upon the two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gayatri Mohapatra Vs.
Ashit Kumar Panda, reported in (2003) 11 Supreme Court Cases 731, wherein it is held that wife is able to travel natal family business, upon such
circumstances, the ground of the applicant is not valid for seeking transfer of the Family Suit. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 197, wherein it is held that leniency
to ladies shown by court in such transfer matters often misused and taken advantage of by women, so court is now required to consider each petition
on its merits. In this case, grandparents available to look after the child and respondent willing to bear all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner
and her companion for every visit to attend court at Delhi. The petitioner except for stating that she was not keeping good health, gave no particulars
and she can apply for exemption from attending Court at Delhi on a particular date and court will consider the same on merits. Thus, no ground for
transfer made out and directions given to respondent and trial trial Court and the petition was dismissed.
Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides, int the present case the applicant is practicing as a Doctor â€" Dentist. Further, the
respondent is paying Rs.16,800/- per month towards maintenance for which, there is no opposition at this juncture regarding such payment of
maintenance. Further, as per the judgments cited by the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent â€" husband, if the wife is unable to travel due to
some reasons, in that case, the Court may interfere but in the present case there is no case made out by the applicant that she cannot travel from
Surat to Ahmedabad. The respondent â€" husband might have casual leaves, but it cannot be a ground for transferable consideration, so also, merely
the illness of the parents like high blood pressure and thyroid are not good grounds to transfer the matter from Ahmedabad to Surat. This Court has
also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gayatri Mohapatra Vs. Ashit Kumar Panda (Supra), wherein it is held
that transfer of proceeding in the matrimonial dispute, where the ability to travel, where the petitioner wife had filed petition for transfer (to Cuttack,
Orissa) of matrimonial case filed by the respondent husband (before the Family Court, Meerut) on ground that she would not be able to travel to
attend the hearing, but pleadings established that she had travelled from place to place in connection with her natal family business and held her ground
was not a valid one for seeking transfer. In the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (Supra), it is held that transfer of proceedings in the matrimonial
disputes, where the wife filed a transfer petition on ground of her difficulty to attend the Court at Delhi because of having a child of six years, having
no source of income and not keeping good health. The leniency to ladies shown by court in such transfer matters often misused and taken advantage
of by women, so court is now required to consider each petition on its merits. In that case, grandparents available to look after the child and
respondent willing to bear all expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner and her companion for every visit to attend court at Delhi. The petitioner
except for stating that she was not keeping good health, gave no particulars and she can apply for exemption from attending Court at Delhi on a
particular date and court will consider the same on merits. Thus, no ground for transfer made out and directions given to respondent and Family Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no need of liberal approach in the case of transfer of the matter. Further, the respondent
is prepared to pay travelling expenses and the stay allowances to the applicant upon such premises also the application is not required to be allowed.
On all such grounds, the application is devoid of merits and requires to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. However, the respondent â€
husband is directed to pay travelling allowances including first class fare of Railway and expenses for stay at good hotel at Ahmedabad for attending
the Court proceedings. The respondent -husband shall pay in advance the expenses either in cash or deposit the same amount at the concerned trial
Court prior to one week of actual date of Court proceedings and the applicant â€" wife is at liberty to withdraw the same amount accordingly. Rule is
discharged.