Rima Devi @ Rima Thakur vs Dipendra Nath Thakur

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner wife seeks transfer of Original Suit No. 162 of 2018, instituted by the opposite party husband for restitution of conjugal rights under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, from the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Ranchi.

According to the petitioner, the marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2000 in Ranchi and parties started living together in Bokaro where a daughter

and a son were born in due course of time. However, petitioner was ill treated by the opposite party husband and assaulted on 05.08.2017, as a result

of which, she sustained severe head injury. She lost her mental balance and thereafter she was driven out of her matrimonial house with her minor son

on 26.12.2017. A compromise was earlier held in December 2012 but ill treatment continued. Petitioner has alleged that her husband has murdered

their daughter on 11.03.2018 and spread rumour that she has committed suicide. Petitioner could not do anything due to her treatment at Ranchi. She

has complained before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro but no action was taken (Annexure-3). She also complained before the State Women’s

Commission, Ranchi and the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro regarding murder of her daughter and ill treatment meted out to her by her husband and

in laws. Petitioner could not institute criminal case due to threat given by him. The suit has been filed at Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights with

false allegation that petitioner had left her matrimonial home and is unwilling to go back. Because of financial constraint and distance from Ranchi to

Bokaro, she is having practical difficulty in attending the matrimonial suit at Bokaro, as a result of which four plaintiff’s witnesses were discharged

without any cross examination on her part. However, vide order dated 07.12.2019 those witnesses have been recalled and three dates have been

allowed to her to cross examine them, however a cost of Rs.2000/- has been imposed upon her. It is submitted that petitioner would be seriously

inconvenienced if the matrimonial suit is allowed to continue at Bokaro and may remain uncontested in those circumstances. Therefore, prayer made

in the instant petition be allowed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party has strongly opposed the prayer. He has submitted that the case is at a fag end of the trial. It is not that

petitioner has not appeared in the suit but due to lack of diligence, witnesses of the opposite party husband got discharged without any cross

examination. Learned Family Court, Bokaro noticing the lapses on the part of the petitioner herein has recalled those witnesses at a cost of Rs.2000/-

and next three dates for their examination has been given to her. As such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner who has not only appeared in

the suit but has also been given dates to cross examine the witnesses and contest the suit. At this fag end of the trial, therefore, transfer of the original

suit to Ranchi would prove to be prejudicial to the case of the opposite party.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances herein above. It appears from the

averments made in the petition and the progress of the proceedings of the Original Suit No. 162 of 2018 pending before the learned Family Court,

Bokaro that the petitioner has not been able to properly attend the dates to contest it as a result of which, witnesses of the opposite party husband got

discharged without any cross examination. However, belatedly petitioner in her eagerness to contest the suit, has succeeded in recalling those

witnesses but with a cost of Rs.2000/- imposed upon her. After such cross examination of the witnesses of the husband, petitioner may also like to

lead her own witnesses in support of her defence. The proceedings in the Family Court, Bokaro, in that sense, cannot be said to be at fag end and

much journey is left to be covered. Petitioner, being lady with minor son and a perhaps a daughter killed in some unfortunate incident, would find it

onerous to contest the suit due to practical reasons.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that interest of justice would be served if the Original Suit No. 162 of 2018 instituted by the opposite party

husband for restitution of conjugal rights is heard and decided by the competent Family Court at Ranchi. Accordingly, it is ordered that Original Suit

No. 162 of 2018 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro be transferred to the court of learned Family Court at Ranchi

forthwith. Be it made clear that neither the petitioner nor the opposite party would unnecessarily linger the matter, henceforth.

The transfer petition is disposed of.