High CourtsSingle Bench

Vaishali Vikeshkumar Chauhan vs Vikeshkumar Uttambhai Parmar

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 12 December 2012 · Citation: (2012) 12 GUJ CK 0041

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.B. Shah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Misc. Civil Application No. 2007 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

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

4 paragraphs · 535 words

Honourable Mr. Justice G.B. Shah

1.

This application is filed u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of H.M.P. No. 237 of 2012, filed by the respondent herein-husband against the applicant herein-wife, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, to the Family Court at Bharuch, which is, at present, pending in the Family Court, at Baroda. Ms. Shalini S. Mair, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that marriage of the applicant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 14.12.2007. She submitted that the applicant-wife is living with her parents due to cruelty and improper and unlawful demands made by the respondent-husband. The applicant-wife has filed two different cases viz. complaint lodged on 25.11.2011 being II C.R. No. 59 of 2011 before the Mahila Police Station, Bharuch and on 02.12.2011 case under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence act being Criminal Misc. Application No. 765 of 2011. The respondent-husband has also filed the aforesaid H.M.P. No. 237 of 2012 in the Family Court, Baroda u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that, out of the said wedlock, the applicant has one child, who underwent the surgery of "Hypospadias Repair" and, in the circumstances, it is very difficult for her to attend proceedings before the Family Court at Baroda. Ms. Shalini S. Mair learned advocate for the applicant-wife therefore, submitted that the present application may be allowed and H.M.P. No. 237/2012 may be transferred to the Court Family Court at Bharuch. In support of her application, she relied upon a decision in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, .

2.

Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant, having perused the papers on record, and taking into consideration the averments made in the application which are supported by the affidavit of applicant, it clearly transpires that in the given circumstances, it would be difficult for the applicant-wife to travel to Bharuch from Baroda on and often, for attending the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband herein under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet, if the present application is allowed.

3.

Learned Advocates for the parties have submitted that it is an admitted fact that Criminal Misc. Application No. 768 of 2011 as well as Criminal Misc. Application No. 784 of 2011 are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Bharuch. It is also the fact that since the respondent-husband herein also has to attend the said criminal proceedings at Bharuch, it is observed by the said Court that if a written request is made by the respondent-husband herein to attend both the proceedings and divorce proceedings together, the concerned Court shall consider that request, if practicable. In above view of the matter, present application is allowed. The H.M.P. No. 237 of 2012, pending in the Family Court at Baroda, is ordered to be transferred to the Family Court at Bharuch. The Family Court at Baroda is directed to send the R & P of HMP No. 237 of 2012 to the Competent Court at Bharuch forthwith. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.