AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure interalia seeking transfer of Case
No.39/2017 pending before learned Family Court No.2, Bikaner to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagour.
Mr. Manish Dadhich, learned counsel for the petitioner, narrating the facts stated that the petitioner''s marriage with respondent was solemnised
on 29.06.2006 at Nagour, where-after she started living with her husband and his family at Nokha. After some time the respondent''s relation with
petitioner got strained, for which she has started living with her parents at Nagour. Meanwhile, the respondent - husband has filed a petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is presently pending before the learned Family Court No.2, Bikaner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for participating the proceedings at Bikaner, petitioner has to travel a distance of about 120
Kilometers, during which journey she has to take a small halt at Nokha, her in-laws'' place, which disturbs her, as she has been deserted by her
husband and expelled from the house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the respondent - husband is residing at Nokha from where Nagour is only 45
Kilometers and if the proceedings in question are transferred to Nagour, the respondent - husband would be required to travel only 45 Kilometers,
whereas presently he has to travel 65 to 70 Kilometers to attend the proceedings at Bikaner.
Mr. Manish Dadhich, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be appropriate and in the interest of both the parties to transfer
the case to Nagour, where petitioner has been residing with her parents.
Mr. DLR Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent has filed the present case at Bikaner, before a Court having
jurisdiction to try the same and submitted that the case in question is pending for last 4 years and the petitioner''s behaviour and conduct has been
non-cooperating and even the reply has been filed recently, after the Family Court had taken a stringent view against the petitioner - wife.
While pointing out that the Court below has ordered to pay a cost of Rs.300/- to the petitioner for taking part in the proceedings Mr. Vyas
submitted that the respondent - husband is ready to pay appropriate enhanced amount for the commutation of the petitioner and ready to
recompense the cost of journey even in the Car/Taxi. His clients would pay a sum of RS.3,000/- as and when petitioner comes to Bikaner for
taking part in the proceedings, he undertook and opposed the transfer of the case as prayed by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find it to be a case necessitating transfer from Bikaner to
Nagour, particularly because the case in question had been filed about four years ago and the request for transfer has been made by the petitioner
only recently after 4 years of taking part therein. It is also not in dispute that both the parties have engaged their counsels to take care of their
interest and the petitioner''s presence on each date of hearing is not required. In the facts obtaining in the present case, while rejecting the present
transfer petition, the respondent - husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner - wife as and when she appears before the
Family Court to participate in the proceedings of the present case. The Family Judge No.2, Bikaner before whom the present proceedings are
pending, would ensure that the petitioner - Pinky is paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- by the respondent - husband as and when she attends the
proceedings. With these observations, the transfer petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that the petitioner - wife shall not seek unnecessary
adjournment(s) in the Family Court.