Vandana Sharma vs Ram Bihari Sharma

K.K. Adhikari, J.—This is a petition u/s 24 of the CPC filed by the applicant/wife Shrimati Vandana Sharma for transfer of Civil Suit No. 18-A of 88 (Vandana Sharma v. Rambihari Sharma) pending in the Court of District Judge, Satna.

It is averred that the marriage between the spouse was solemnised on 17-2-89. The spouse, however, could not pull on well with the result, the petitioner/wife had to file a petition before the District Judge, Satna for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The present petition has been filed for transfer of the said petition (Civil Suit No. 18-A of 88) on the ground that her father-in-law Is a leading lawyer of Satna and therefore, she is handicapped to engage services of a good lawyer there at Satna. Further, she has lodged a complaint before the Superintendent Police, Satna and after investigation, the same was registered as Criminal Case No. 1378 of 86 against her father-in-law and other members of the family. Therefore, the atmosphere at Satna is so surcharged against her that her going to Satna to attend the hearing of the case would not be safe for her life.

This Misc. Civil Case is admitted on 5-7-88 and notice was issued to the respondent, Rambihari Sharma. In consequence thereof he appeared through his counsel Shri R.K. Samaiyya. An application (I.A. No. 9045 of 88) for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent has been filed by the respective parties. In the said application it has been mentioned that this mutual consent for divorce has been filed by the spouse out of their free will. However, in para 5 of the compromise petition, they have also mentioned for the withdrawal of the pending Criminal Case No. 1738 of 86 u/s 198A, I.P.C. They further state that neither of the parties shall claim any alimony or maintenance from the other in future. As far as the withdrawal of the criminal case is concerned, the same cannot be directed to be withdrawn as the same is not compoundable.

The case was listed for passing appropriate order in I.A-No. 9045/88 and therefore, the case was taken up for final hearing. Since the parties have amicably settled their disputes and have filed petition for compromise by their consent, in the opinion of this Court, the grounds for transfer as alleged in the petition do not survive any more and the petition for transfer has become infructuous. However, as far as the I.A. No. 9045/88 is concerned, it may be withdrawn by the respective parties and if so advised, they may file the same before the District Judge, Satna, who the plea of the appellants that the suit property was ancestral. Under the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court no interference is called for in this appeal.

For the reasons stated hereinabove the appeal falls and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.