Court No. - 9
Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 215 of 2018 Applicant :- Purnima Pandey Opposite Party :- Additional Judge, Family Court (Ftc-Ii) And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
There is two separate transfer applications are seeking transfer of a divorce petition, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the other under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Both have been filed by the applicant-wife, at Gorakhpur. Their transfer is being sought to District Siddharth Nagar on the ground of convenience.
From the material available on record, it transpires that the applicant, at the moment, is residing at her parental home in District Siddharth Nagar.
The contention of counsel for the opposite party, opposing the transfer application is that there is no cogent ground for allowing these transfer applications. Both the cases were filed by the applicant herself and the address mentioned therein is that of Gorakhpur. The only ground, if any, for filing the transfer application is one of financial stringency and on account of the expenses involved in attending the proceedings at Gorakhpur. In any case, there are various provisions whereunder the applicant would have applied for maintenance pendente-lite specially Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, this has not been invoked by the applicant.
Although, it is also sought to be contended that the distance of the civil court at Gorakhpur and Siddharth Nagar is almost equal from the parental residence of the applicant, however, no such averments to be found in the counter affidavit that has been filed on record.
Additionally, counsel for the opposite party has also submitted that the applicant herself is not serious about the proceedings and has been seeking unnecessary adjournments on which ground she has been saddled with costs, on several occasions. This is an additional ground for rejecting the transfer application.
In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the divorce petition, the written statement has been filed in the year 2017 and therefore, the submission of counsel for the opposite party that the applicant is not co-operating in the proceedings cannot be accepted.
I have considered the submission made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Apex court has repeatedly reiterated that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is an important consideration while dealing with transfer applications. There is no categorical denial that at the moment the applicant is residing in her parental house. Therefore, looking into her convenience, these transfer applications are liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, I allow both transfer applications and directed that the Divorce Petition No.55 of 2013 (Smt. Purnima Pandey vs. Saurabh Kumar Pandey) as also Case No.17 of 2013, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which appear to have been connected, shall stand transferred to District Siddharth Nagar, forthwith, with the stipulation that in case the opposite party does not co-operate in the proceedings and the same are kept pending unnecessarily at her instance, it shall be open for counsel for the opposite party to apply to this Court for recall of this order.
It is also observed that the transferee court shall every endeavour to decide the court proceedings as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Jitendra Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.07.30 17:23:49 UTC Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad