Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
  • section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
  • section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Smt. Jyoti Pandey v. Aditya Pandey

    MCC-1226-2015 (SMT. JYOTI PANDEY Vs ADITYA PANDEY) 16-09-2015 Mr.Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.

    Mr.Rajnish Pandey, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

    Heard.

    In this application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant-wife seeks transfer of proceedeing instituted by the non-applicant/husband under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act from First Additional District Judge Pipariya, District Hoshangabad to Family Court, District Jabalpur.

    Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the applicant is not keeping good health and is under treatment at Nagpur and, therefore she is unable to attend proceeding at Pipariya, District Hoshangabad. It also submitted that there is no one in the family to escort the applicant to Pipariya. It further stated that the distance between Pipariya to Jabalpur is abouit 250 Kms. It is also submitted that applicant is working as a Lower Division Clerk and it is not possible for her to take frequent leaves.

    On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant has opposed the prayer made by applicant for transfer of case.

    I have considered the submisisons made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that though section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power on Court to transfer proceeding, yet this power has to be exercised with circumspection and care. Convenience of the parties has to be taken on account. [See: Kulwinder Kaur vs.

    Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, (2008) 3 SCC 659].

    In (2003) 11 SCC 726 Supreme Court had directed transfer of proceeding taking into account the fact that wife was required to travel long distance and was required to take care of daughter aged four years. Similarly, in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another AIR 2002 SC 396 the Supreme Court observed that it was the husband's suit against wife and, therefore, convenience of wife has to be taken into account.

    In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case as also keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, I deem it appropriate to transfer the proceeding under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act insituted by non-applicant/husband being H.M.C.No.12-A/2015 pending in the court of First Additional District Judge, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad to the court of competent jurisdiction at Jabalpur.

    The court at Jabalpur shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceeding expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

    With the aforesaid direction the application is disposed of.

    C.C. as per rules.

    (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Smt. Jyoti Pandey v. Aditya Pandey
    (Sep 16, 2015)