Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
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
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks transfer of a matrimonial suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016) from the Family Court, Bhopal to the Family Court, Jabalpur. The applicant, wife and defendant in the matrimonial suit filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent husband, contends that she was married to the respondent on 1-12-2011 at Jabalpur and they have a four-year-old daughter. The respondent alleges that the applicant resided with him only briefly and then pressured him to reside separately at Bhopal. The applicant denies these allegations and counter-alleges harassment and dowry demands by the respondent and his family. Several criminal complaints filed by the applicant against the respondent concerning dowry demand and domestic violence are pending in courts at Jabalpur.

The applicant resides in Jabalpur, dependent on her elderly mother and without a male companion to accompany her to Bhopal for court hearings, causing her significant inconvenience. The respondent opposes the transfer but offers to bear the applicant’s travel expenses.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the matrimonial suit pending in the Family Court, Bhopal should be transferred to the Family Court, Jabalpur on grounds of convenience and related proceedings being pending in Jabalpur.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The applicant resides in Jabalpur with her elderly, paralyzed mother and has a young daughter, making travel to Bhopal difficult and inconvenient.
  • Several related criminal cases and maintenance proceedings against the respondent are pending in courts at Jabalpur.
  • There is no male member to accompany her to Bhopal for court hearings, causing hardship.
  • Complaints under various statutes including dowry demand and domestic violence have been filed and are pending in Jabalpur.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondent is willing to bear the travel expenses for the applicant to attend proceedings in Bhopal.
  • Relies on prior orders and Supreme Court precedent (Anindita Das v. Srijit Das) to argue that convenience alone should not warrant transfer.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 No leniency should be shown for convenience of the applicant in transfer petitions. Noted by respondent counsel but outweighed by other factors favoring transfer.
Jyoti Bangde v. Sanjay Bangde, 2010 (4) M.P.LJ. 391 Convenience of the party, especially wife, is a relevant factor in transfer petitions in matrimonial matters. Supported the court’s view favoring transfer to Jabalpur.
Rajkumar s/o Gopilal v. Saroj w/o Rajkumar, 2010 (2) M.P.LJ. 256 Convenience and balance of hardships in matrimonial transfer petitions. Considered by the court in deciding transfer.
Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659 Convenience of parties and related proceedings as grounds for transfer. Reinforced the court’s reasoning in favor of transfer.
Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, (2016) 3 SCC 69; AIR 2016 SC 718 Transfer of matrimonial matter where parties are participating in other proceedings in the transferee court’s jurisdiction. Strongly fortified the court’s decision to transfer the suit to Jabalpur.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the applicant’s residence, dependence on an elderly mother, presence of a young child, and lack of a male companion to attend hearings in Bhopal as significant hardships. The pendency of related criminal and maintenance proceedings against the respondent in Jabalpur was also a crucial factor. The respondent’s offer to bear travel expenses was found insufficient to offset these hardships. The court emphasized that convenience of the wife and the overall balance of convenience are relevant considerations in transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, especially in matrimonial matters. The court relied on judicial precedents supporting transfer where the applicant faces genuine inconvenience and where related proceedings are pending in the transferee court’s jurisdiction. Given these considerations, the court found it just and appropriate to transfer the matrimonial suit to the Family Court, Jabalpur.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court allowed the application and ordered transfer of Regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016 from the Family Court, Bhopal to the Family Court, Jabalpur. The case record shall be sent to Jabalpur, and the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Jabalpur for further proceedings. The decision directly affects the parties by facilitating the applicant’s convenience and ensuring related proceedings are consolidated geographically. No new precedent beyond the application of established principles was set.

    Veena Wankhede v. Subhash Rao Wankhede

    Shri Niranjan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.

    Shri Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent.

    2. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

    3. This is a petition filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Code’ for brevity) for transfer of matrimonial matter registered as regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016 pending in the Court of Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bhopal to the Family Court, Jabalpur.

    4. The case of the applicant is that she is the wife and has been impleaded as defendant in the matrimonial matter filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 registered as regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016 filed by the respondent seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the present applicant. The applicant has contended that the she was married with respondent according to Hindu rites and customs on 1-12-2011 at Jabalpur. The respondent and the defendant have been blessed with a girl child namely Ku. Shruti Wankhede aged about four years. It is further contended that the respondent made allegation against the applicant that she resided with him for two months only and thereafter, started pressurizing him to reside separately at Bhopal with her leaving his parents at Bina. The other allegations have also been made against the present applicant in the said petition.

    5. The aforesaid allegations have been denied by the present applicant before the learned Family Court, Bhopal and the counter allegations have been made against the respondent/plaintiff and his family members that they are harassing the applicant and demanding dowry of Rs. 1 lakh.

    6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the criminal cases against respondent are being tried in the jurisdiction of the competent Court at Jabalpur. It is submitted that the several complaints have been made before the police authorities for registering the offences of dowry demand, domestic violence etc. against them at Jabalpur. When no action was taken by the police, she filed an application under section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance and registering the FIR against the respondent/plaintiff and his family members. Copy of the complaints have been filed along with the present application as Annexure P/3 and P/4. The application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code claiming the maintenance has also been filed before the learned Family Court, Jabalpur and a complaint under the Prevention of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also pending before the competent Court at Jabalpur. The relevant documents have been filed along with this application as Annexures P/5, P/6.

    7. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that she is residing at Jabalpur and the distance of Jabalpur from Bhopal where the present case is being tried by the Family Court is more than 300 kms i.e. Jabalpur. The applicant is dependent on her old aged mother who is suffering from paralysis and his brother is in a private job who also can not accompany her on each and every date of hearing of the matter before the Family Court at Bhopal. It is submitted that the applicant being a lady having a female child aged about four years faces a lot of inconvenience to travel alone for attending the case on every date of hearing at Bhopal. On these grounds, the prayer is made that the matrimonial case pending before the Family Court, Bhopal be transferred to the Family Court, Jabalpur.

    8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is ready to bear the expenses of travelling of the applicant from Jabalpur to Bhopal. He relies on the order passed by this Court on 2-9-2015 in M.C.C. No. 1074/2013 and also on the judgment passed in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das ., (2006) 9 SCC 197 and contends that no leniency should be shown by the Court for convenience of the applicant.

    9. After having considered the rival submissions of both the parties, I am of the view that applicant is wife having a girl child aged about four years staying at Jabalpur and the fact that there is no male member to accompany her on each and every date of hearing of the case at Bhopal from Jabalpur has made out a case for transfer from Bhopal to Jabalpur. The other criminal cases against the respondent are filed at Jabalpur. It is not denied by the respondent that he is not participating in these criminal cases at Jabalpur. The specific averments have been made in para 7 of the application which have not been denied by the respondent. The mere offer of travel expenses to the applicant would not meet out the other grounds mentioned by the applicant that she is a lady having a female child of four years no source of income, no other adult male member to accompany her etc. Considering the overall facts and grounds, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant/wife and if the matrimonial case is not transferred from Bhopal to Jabalpur then she has to face more inconvenience in defending the case at Bhopal therefore, I am of the view that matrimonial matter registered as regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016 be transferred from the Court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal to Family Court, Jabalpur. The convenience of a party in a matrimonial matter is one of the relevant factor for consideration of a transfer petition specially when the application is filed by wife. This view finds support from the judgments passed in the cases of Jyoti Bangde v. Sanjay Bangde, 2010 (4) M.P.LJ. 391, Rajkumar s/o Gopilal v. Saroj w/o Rajkumar, 2010 (2) M.P.LJ. 256 and the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur v. Kandi Friends Education Trust, (2008) 3 SCC 659. Further, this view is fortified by the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari ., 2016 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 17 : (2016) 3 SCC 69 : AIR 2016 SC 718 where the Apex Court transferred the matrimonial matter from Rajkot to Jamnagar on the ground that the parties were participating the other proceedings at Jamnagar.

    10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The matrimonial matter registered as regular Civil Suit No. 968-A/2016 is hereby ordered to be transferred from the Court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal to Family Court, Jabalpur. The record be sent from such Court to Family Court, Jabalpur. The parties appearing before the Family Court, Bhopal shall appear before the Family Court, Jabalpur for further proceedings on 2nd of March, 2017.

    11. C.C as per rules.

    Application allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Veena Wankhede v. Subhash Rao Wankhede
    (Jan 27, 2017)