MCC-495-2014 (SMT. ABHILASHA CHOURASIYA Vs VIJAY KUMAR CHOURASIYA) 08-03-2016 Mr. Sudhir Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the non-applicant, even though served. Heard. By means of this application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant-wife seeks transfer of Case No.38-A/13 from Family Court, Jawra, Distt. Ratlam to Family Court at Jabalpur.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 26.5.2003. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband has instituted a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights at Jawra, Distt. Ratlam registered as Civil Suit No.38- A/13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-wife has also instituted a proceeding 125 of the Cr.P.C. as also a case under Section 498-A, 294, 506/34 of I.P.C. before the competent Court at Jabalpur against the non-applicant, wherein, he has entered appearance. It is also submitted that whenever the petitioner-wife visits to attend the Court at Jawra, she is being misbehaved and threatened by the respondent-husband. It is further submitted that the applicant is a house- hold lady and has to take care of her daughter, aged about 8 years. It is also submitted that the distance between Jabalpur to Ratlam is approx.
700 Kms. and there is no male member in the family of the applicant to accompany her to Jawra, which causes great inconvenience and hardships to her while travelling.
3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that though section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power on the Court to transfer the proceeding yet this power has to be exercised with circumspection and care. Convenience of parties has to be seen. See: Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, (2008) 3 SCC 659. However, the Supreme Court has sounded a note of caution that leniency to women shown by Court in such transfer matters are often misused and taken advantage of by women and, therefore, the Court is required to consider each case on its merits. In Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197 and Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR, 2002 SC 396, the Supreme Court has held that in a suit instituted by the husband, convenience of the wife has to be taken into account. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court and taking5. into account the fact that the applicant/wife is resident of Jabalpur as well as taking into account the fact that there is no male member in the family of the applicant to accompany her to attend the proceedings at Jawra, Distt. Ratlam and if the applicant/wife is required to attend the proceedings at Ratlam, she would suffer inconvenience. In a suit instituted by the husband, the convenience of the wife has to be taken into account. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to transfer the matrimonial proceeding namely Case No.38-A/13 pending in the Family Court, Jawra, Distt. Ratlam, to the Family Court, at Jabalpur. Accordingly, the MCC is disposed of. C.C. as per rules. (ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE