Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCC/2635/2023 of SMT. SARASWATI Vs SAWAPNIL on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESHON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2635 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SARASWATI W/O SHRI SAWAPNIL SHARMA, AGEDABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/OGRAM PIPLIYA RASODA TALLUK NARSINGGARH(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(MS. KIRTEE AGRAWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )
AND
SAWAPNIL S/O SHRI RAJESH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOKRI H.N.256, SCHEME NO. 78,E.S. 4, INDOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THERESPONDENT [R-1])
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 24 of the CPC seekingtransfer of HMA Case No.1758/2023 pending before III Additional PrincipalJudge, Family Court, Indore to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court,Rajgarh.
2. This petition is filed on the ground that the applicant has no source of
2
income of her own and she is having a little child with her. The distancebetween Indore to Rajgarh is 190 Kms and it is very difficult for the applicant totravel with her child. The applicant has an apprehension that if she comes toIndore, respondent would harass her and can commit any offence against theapplicant. On above grounds, it is prayed that HMA Case No.1758/2023pending before III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore betransferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the presentapplication stating that applicant wants to harass the respondent by transferringthis case to Rajgarh. He further submits that respondent is ready to pay theexpenses to attend the hearing at Indore and prays for dismissal of the presentpetition.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Sunita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay andanother reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 has held that in a husband’s suitagainst wife for divorce, the convenience of the wife must be looked at. Thecircumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petitionabsolute. Similar observation was made by the Supreme Court in the case ofRajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pradeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after takinginto consideration the aforesaid judgments and also the fact that petitioner is awoman and mother of a child, the present petition is allowed and HMA CaseNo.1758/2023 pending before III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,Indore is transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh.
6. Parties are directed to appear before Principal Judge, Family Court,Rajgarh on 26.02.2024.
MCC stands allowed and disposed off.
N.R.
(HIRDESH)JUDGE