Priyanka vs Mukund Didel

Applicant-wife has laid this transfer application under Section 24 CPC with the prayer to transfer Case No.469/2018, pending before Family Court No.3, Jaipur to the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur.

For seeking transfer, it is, inter-alia, averred in the application that marriage between rival parties was solemnized on 06.11.2011 at Nagaur and the matrimony continued streamlined for quite some time. Applicant has further pleaded that subsequently when respondent temporarily shifted his residence to Jaipur for earning his livelihood, some acrimony cropped-up between both of them and his parents too joined him to harass her with the demand of dowry. The applicant has also averred that facing this sort of hostile atmosphere, she was forced to leave matrimonial home and consequently since then she is residing at her parental house in village Bharnawa, District Nagaur. Applicant has also pleaded that both the spouses are permanent residents of Nagaur and respondent is having only temporary abode at Jaipur but inspite of that he has filed the petition for dissolution of marriage at Jaipur. As per version of the applicant, Jaipur is at far distance of 200 kms from Nagaur, and therefore, she is facing great difficulty in attending proceedings of the case.

On behalf of respondent, reply to the transfer petition is submitted wherein the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment attributed to him and his family members are denied. In the return, respondent has also pleaded that he is doing a private job whereas applicant is presently posted as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Village Bharnawa, District Nagaur and earning handsomely. It is also submitted in the return that the applicant is self-sufficient, self-reliant and unencumbered, therefore, can conveniently undertake journey and attend the proceedings at Jaipur. The respondent has also pleaded that at present, he is serving as Faculty Member of Maharishi Arvind College of Pharmacy, Jaipur, which is a private college, therefore, it would be very difficult for him to attend the proceedings at Nagaur if the case is transferred; because in private jobs grant of leave is very scarce and he cannot afford to lose the job by availing unnecessary leave/leaves. The respondent has also placed on record documents showing his medical history and advice of doctor not to take stress and undertake journey. With all these averments, respondent has prayed for rejection of transfer application.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Ors. [AIR 2002 SC 396].

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Tilotamma Vs. Anoop Kumar [2010 (2) CDR 729 (Raj.)].

While it is true that in the matter of transfer of a case or petition distance of the Court or convenience of a party to the litigation is not genuine consideration but then in appropriate cases, Court can take a benevolent view favouring the cause of a wife. However, if the grievances of applicant are objectively examined then it would ipso facto reveal that she is a government servant earning handsomely whereas respondent is doing a private job. Moreover, the applicant is also unencumbered and regularly attending her duties as an officer of the Govt., and therefore, it is rather difficult to comprehend that she will face any sort of difficulty in attending the proceedings at Jaipur. The distance of 200 kms, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the status of applicant, can hardly be a ground for acceding to her prayer. That apart, the ailment of respondent, which is highlighted in reply, cannot be completely overlooked by the Court because inconvenience of both the spouses is to be equi-balanced by this Court while considering transfer application.

The judgments, on which learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance, are also examined by me. However, ratio decidendi of the judgments cannot be applied in an abstract sense divorcing the facts of a case.

In totality, the grounds set out by the applicant, seeking transfer of the case, are far from convincing within the four corners of Section 24 CPC.

Resultantly, the transfer application fails and same is hereby rejected.