SHILPA vs HEMANT MANJIBHAI VAGH

Rule. Mr.Dipak Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the opponent.

With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

By way of the present application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the applicant wife the original respondent in Family Suit No. 779 of 2016 filed by the present opponent husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Family Court, Ahmedabad, has prayed to transfer Family Suit No. 779 of 2016 from Family Court, Ahmedabad to Family Court, Junagadh in the interest of justice.

The brief facts arise from the record are as under: 4.1. That the parties to the present proceedings entered into marriage on 24.04.2015 as per the Hind Vedic Rites at Junagadh. The applicant wife started residing with the opponent husband at her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad. Some dispute arose between the parties and therefore, the opponent husband had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Hindu Marriage Petition No. 815 of 2015 in the Family Court, Ahmedabad and prayed for decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

4.2. Since the applicant wife is residing with her parents at Junagdh, she preferred application under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Junagadh being Criminal Misc. Application No. 383 of 2015. The Family Suit No. 779 of 2016, which was filed by the opponent husband, was withdrawn by him on 05.01.2016 on the ground that the matter was settled between the parties. It is the say of the opponent husband that the present applicant wife had agreed for mutual divorce, however, she did not give consent for the same and therefore, the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending in the Family Court, Ahmedabad.

4.3. Hence, the present application for transferring the suit from the Family Court, Ahmedabad to Family Court, Junagadh.

Mr.R.Y. Vyas, learned advocate would submit that the applicant wife, who is respondent in the Family Suit No. 779 of 2016 filed by the present opponent husband for the divorce, has preferred an application under Section 24 of the Code and requested that the case may be transferred from Family Court, Ahmedabad to Family Court, Junagadh. He would further submit that she is unable to attend the Court proceedings at Ahmedabad since she is having no independent income. He would further submit that being a lady, she has to travel from Junagadh to Ahmedabd to attend the court proceedings time and again. He would further submit that the applicant wife has no independent income and therefore, she has filed an application for getting maintenance before the concerned Magistrate at Junagadh. He would further submit that the opponent husband is well educated person and is working as technical supervisor with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and is getting handsome salary. He would further submit that if the case is transferred to Junagadh, it would be easier for the applicant wife to attend the Court at Junagadh since she has to attend other criminal proceedings lodged by her against the opponent husband. Therefore, the present application be allowed and the Family Suit pending in the Family Court, Ahmedabad be transferred to Family Court, Junagadh.

On the other hand, Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate appearing for the opponent husband, has opposed this application and submitted that the opponent husband is working as technical supervisor in the engineering department in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and has to remain present on duty 24 hours and is being called at any point of time and has to visit some places for technical faults. He would further submit that the opponent husband has to visit the some places even in the night hours, if some technical faults arose and therefore, it is difficult for him to leave Ahmedabad time and again. He would further submit that the applicant wife has filed several cases in the court of the learned Magistrate at Junagadh and therefore, it becomes impossible for him to visit time and again since the cases are pending in the different courts. He would further submit that the opponent husband is ready and willing to pay expenses to the applicant wife for traveling from Junagadh to Ahmedabad. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. It appears that the marriage span between the applicant wife and opponent husband is very short. The applicant wife is residing with her parents at Junagadh and doing household work. The applicant wife has no independent income and being a lady, may have to visit for different proceedings, which has been initiated by the opponent husband on number of occasions i.e. from Junagadh to Ahmedabad and traveling time from Junagadh to Ahmedabad is about six to seven hours.

It is true that some criminal proceedings have been filed by the present applicant wife in the Court at Junagadh. I have also considered the fact that the opponent husband working as technical supervisor with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and therefore, he can afford to visit to Junagadh on the date of hearing of the case.

Considering the oral all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and hence the same is allowed. Family Suit No. 779 of 2016 pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad is transferred to Family Court, Junagadh along with Hindu Marriage Petition No. 815 of 2015. It would be open for the opponent husband to request the learned Magistrate to take all the matters on one date so that he may not have to visit time and again. If such application is filed by the opponent husband, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances narrated above. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

Mr.R.Y.Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the applicant wife, states that applicant wife has no objection, if all the matters pending before the concerned judge are clubbed and heard by single judge.