Smt. Radhika vs Sikender Saini

Sanjay Karol, J.—Petitioner-wife Smt. Radhika has instituted this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer that the case instituted by the respondent-husband Shri Sikender Saini, seeking a decree for conjugal rights, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, be transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Shimla to any of the Courts at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the instant case.

Petitioner resides at Kullu and proceedings have been instituted at Shimla, which is not a far-off place from Kullu. It is easily accessible. There is an unsubstantiated averment that there is threat to life of the petitioner. It be only observed that except for a bald assertion, the averments in the petition, in that regard, are woefully vague and unspecific.

I have not gone through the other allegations made by the petitioner in the present petition, with regard to alleged acts of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the petitioner, for the simple reason that it may have a bearing on the outcome of the petition filed by the respondent-husband.

Reference is made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Vibha Dubey versus Rahul Dubey, (2012) 11 SCC 753; and Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, I find that the decisions (supra) are based on factual situation and do not lay down proposition of law, so as to constitute a binding precedent.

In matrimonial proceedings, it is not necessary that the party has to appear in the Court on each and every hearing. Petitioner may instruct her counsel personally or through other means of communication. To urge that petitioner requires travelling to attend the Court on each and every date of hearing cannot be accepted as a ground for transfer of the petition, since there is no statutory condition required for such process. That apart, petitioner being an educated lady, aged 21 years, can easily travel to Shimla as and when required.

Under these circumstances, the petition is dismissed, so also pending application(s) if any.