Meera Pradhan vs Sunil Pradhan

Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J—This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of Civil Proceeding No. 96 of 2013 from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

The petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party. The marriage was solemnized on 10.3.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs. After dissensions cropped up, the petitioner is living with her parents house at Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, the opposite party filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur, which is registered as Civil Proceeding No. 96 of 2013. In the instant petition under Section 24 CPC, the petitioner seeks transfer of the said case to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. It is stated that due to poor financial condition, she is not in a position to appear in the court at Jajpur. On 25.11.2014 due to her non-appearance, the application for maintenance was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, she filed a misc. case being Misc. Case No. 36 of 2014 for restoration of the application for interim maintenance, but the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur instead of disposing of the interim application took up the case for final hearing. It is further stated that since she is living in a very distress condition at her parents house, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for maintenance. It is further stated that there is no male member to accompany her from Bhubaneswar to Jajpur except her old and ailing father.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-husband denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that in the proceeding two witnesses had already been examined. All the witnesses belong to Jajpur. In the event the proceeding is transferred, the opposite party will be highly prejudiced.

Heard Mr. Pradipta Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Diptiranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

In the case of Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, AIR 2002 SC 396 : (2001) 10 SCC 41 : (2001) AIRSCW 5193 : (2001) 5 Supreme 667 , the apex Court has held that wife''s convenience must be looked at while considering the application for transfer of the case.

Relying on the decision of the apex Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party, submits that there is no hard and fast rule that for the inconvenience of the wife the matrimonial proceeding should be transferred from one court to another. In Anindita Das (supra), the apex Court held that, taking advantage of the leniency shown by the apex court, large number transfer petitions are filed by women. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board on each court on each admission day. Therefore, it is clear that leniency of the Court is being misused by the women. It was further held that the court is now required to consider each petition on its merit and considering the facts and circumstances of that case directed the husband to pay all travel and stay expenses of the wife and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the court.

Two witnesses have been examined in the case. The petitioner participated in the trial. In such eventuality, it may not be difficult on the part of the petitioner and her witnesses to attend the court at Jajpur. But one aspect of the matter cannot be overlooked, i.e. difficulty of the petitioner in attending the court at Jajpur due to power financial condition.

Taking a cue from Anindita Das (supra), this Court directs the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) on each and every date towards the travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion. He same amount shall be sent to the petitioner much in advance of the date of hearing of the case. The learned court below shall ensure compliance of this order.

The petition is disposed of.