High CourtsSingle Bench(1990) 02 MP CK 0003

Mrs. Savita Naga vs Pradeep Kumar Naga

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 14 February 1990 · Citation: (1991) MPJR 373

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Awasthy, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M. C. C. No. 488 of 1989 (J)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 403 words

This application has been filed for transfer of Civil Suit No. 42-A/89 pending in the Court of the District Judge, Hoshangabad to the Court of the District Judge, Howrah.

The applicant was married to the non-applicant on 16-11-1983 at Liluah, police station Bally, district Howrah according to Hindu Rites. They lived together happily till June, 1988. It is alleged that the non-applicant/ husband deserted her without any reasonable cause. She, therefore, filed a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 2-5-1989. It was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 83/89

The non-applicant also filed a suit u/s 13 of the Act for granting a decree of divorce on 18-7-1989 in the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh which is registered as Civil Suit No. 42-A/ 89. Thus, the suit at Howrah was earlier in point of time.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that u/s 21-A of the Act, this Court is competent to transfer the case pending before the District Judge, Hoshangabad to the Court of District Judge, Howrah (West Bengal).

The argument of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that this provision is not applicable as the said provision is applied to the petitions under Sections 10 and 13 of the Act only, if filed earlier in time. This provision does not apply to an application filed u/s 9 of the Act.

The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the case of Guda Vijayalakshmi Vs. Guda Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry,

Section 23 read with Section 24 of the CPC empowers the High Court to transfer a case pending in Madhya Pradesh to other State, if the ends of justice so require. In this case it would be convenient and better if both the suits are consolidated and tried by one and same Court. This is what the Supreme Court has held in the case of G. Vijayalakshmi v. Ramaehandra Sekhara Sastry (Supra).

1, therefore, order that Civil Suit No. 42-A/89 pending in the Court of District Judge, Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Howrah (West Bengal) for being consolidated with Matrimonial Suit No. 83 of 1989 pending in the Court of District Judge, Howrah to be tried by the same Judge.

In the result, the application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.