MCC-137-2016 (SMT MANJULA SINGH CHOUHAN Vs VIHSAL SINGH CHOUHAN) 21-07-2016 Shri Wasu Waswani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally with consent.
This application under section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of the H.M.A.
Case No.71/2016 filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been mistreated by the respondent and that she is physically weak and unable to travel to Indore. He further submits that other cases are pending at Bhopal and relative convenience is required to be seen.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner is in a position to travel to Indore, that Indore and Bhopal are well connected, that the two cases have been filed against the respondent at Bhopal subsequently and the petitioner is an educated lady therefore, no case for transferring the pending matter is made out.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the plea of the respondent in the reply that Bhopal and Indore are well connected by road, has not been disputed by the petitioner. So far as the plea relating to the medical problem of the petitioner is reverenced, no document of any treatment of the petitioner has been filed subsequent to January' 2016. The plea of the respondent in the reply that the petitioner's father is employed in BHEL having the approximate income of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. and the younger brother of the petitioner is also an Engineer, who can accompany the petitioner has also not been controverted by filing any rejoinder.
It is undisputed that the petitioner is a double post graduate. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to the CV of the petitioner filed as Annexure R-5 and has pointed out that she was working as Lecturer in Inter College. So far as the case under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Domestic Violence Act filed at Bhopal are concerned, they have been filed subsequently.
That apart, the counsel for the respondent has also fairly stated before this Court that the respondent is ready to bear all the necessary expenses in respect of the traveling etc. of the petitioner and her companion as and when she is required to appear before the Court at Indore.
Hence, considering the relative convenience and inconvenience of the parties, I am of the opinion that no case for transferring the pending proceedings is made out. The Supreme Court in the case of of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das [(2006) 9 SCC 197] has held that leniency to ladies shown by the court in such transfer matters often misused and taken advantage of by woman therefore, the Court is not required to consider each petition on its own merit.
This Court in the matters of Smt. Pratibha Mishra vs.
Mukesh Mishra, vide order dated 28.10.2010 passed in MCC No.510/2009, Anamika Pandey vs. Shrihar Pandey vide order dated 27.08.2015 passed in MCC No.1449/2014, Deepa Kuttapan vs. Anil Rajan vide order dated 12.01.2007 passed in MCC No.1536/2006 and Smt. Aditi Chouhan vs. Deepak Chouhan vide order dated 14.03.2016 passed in MCC No.83/2016 has dismissed the similar transfer applications.
Hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, the MCC is dismissed, however with the direction to the respondent to pay the traveling and lodging boarding expenses of the petitioner and her companion as and when the petitioner is required to appear before the competent court at Indore. The said amount will be fixed by the competent court where the matter is pending. The petitioner will also be at liberty to file an appropriate application for exemption from personal appearance before the Court at Indore and will be required to appear only as and when such personal appearance is necessary.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE