High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt. Padmawati Karwa @ Nirpa Karwa vs Sumit Karwa

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 18 May 2018 · Citation: (2018) 05 JH CK 0082

HON’BLE JUDGES
AMITAV K. GUPTA, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 24 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Transfer Petition (Civil) No.9 of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 455 words
1.

This petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of Original Matrimonial Suit No.63 of 2015 from the Court

of the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

2.

Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner-wife was subjected to mental torture and physical harassment resulting in her being admitted to a

hospital for treatment. That due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demand, she was driven out of the matrimonial house and she has been residing with

her parents at Jamshedpur. It is submitted by the learned counsel that she has instituted a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code (as contained in Annexure-1) bearing Parsudih P.S. Case No.7 of 2016. That the opposite party is appearing and facing trial in the said

case. The present matrimonial suit has been filed by the opposite party-husband as an afterthought to set up a defence in order to save his skin in

the criminal case lodged earlier by the petitioner. That the petitioner does not have any independent source of income. She is dependent on her

parents for her livelihood and is facing great difficulty and hardship in travelling from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa and in engaging a counsel to defend the

suit at Chaibasa courts.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed and submitted that in fact the opposite party has instituted a . suit under Section

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of the conjugal right as he wants to lead a happy married life along with the petitioner. That the petitioner,

without sufficient cause, has left the company of the opposite party, hence no cogent and justifiable reason has been made out for transfer of the said

suit.

4.

Heard. Admittedly the petitioner has lodged a criminal case in courts at Jamshedpur and the opposite party is contesting the same. Since the

opposite party is appearing and facing trial in the said criminal case at Jamshedpur, therefore, no inconvenience shall be caused to him, if the aforesaid

matrimonial suit is transferred from Chaibasa to Jamshedpur.  Moreover the petitioner does not have sufficient fund to engage a counsel at

Chaibasa and she is facing hardship and difficulty in travelling from Jamshedpur to Chaibasa accordingly Original Matrimonial Suit No.63 of 2015

pending in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa is ordered to be transferred to the Court of the Principal

Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur at the stage at which it is.

5.

This transfer petition stands allowed.

6.

Let this order be communicated to the courts below.