S.B. CIVIL TRANSFER PETITION NO.14/2008. (Manju Balla Vs. Harish Kumar) Date of Order :: 26th May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Shyam S. Khatri, for the petitioner. ... BY THE COURT: By way of this transfer petition, the petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the non-petitioner-husband (Case No.114/2007:Harish Kumar Vs. Manju Balla) from the Court of District Judge, Sriganganagar to a competent court at Sangaria, District Hanumangarh. The petitioner has averred that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at village Rawla, District Sriganganagar on 06.12.2001 and the parties have a four year old child from this wedlock; that substantial dowry was extended at the time of marriage but the behaviour of the in- laws of the petitioner was not proper and she was subjected to mental cruelty and physical harassment for demand of dowry; that the behaviour of the non-petitioner-husband had been quarrelsome and he used to beat the petitioner and finally she was ousted from the matrimonial house and since then she is living at Sangaria in her parental house. 1 While stating that the non-petitioner has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that has been registered as Case No.114/2007 and is pending in the Court of the District Judge at Sriganganagar, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of this case to a competent court at Sangaria, District Hanumangarh on the grounds that she is living at her parental house since the year 2006, has no source of income, and is suffering economic hardship to maintain herself and her son; that it is not possible for her to travel a distance of 90 kms. from Sangaria to Sriganganagar; that she has no male member in the family except her father; and that she deserves humanitarian considerations being a poor lady having no source of income. The petitioner has also stated her apprehension that if she and other members of the family would go to Sriganganagar to contest the case, the non- petitioner and his family members would kill them in view of the threats extended by the non-petitioner. Learned counsel pressed for consideration the submissions that the petitioner is a woman having no arrangement of her maintenance; that it is extremely difficult for her to travel about 90 kms. from Sangaria to Sriganganagar to attend the matter particularly when there is no source of income and she has a child only four years in age. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is sought to be 2 prevailed upon when attending the matter at Sriganganagar where the husband and her relatives pressurize her to agree for divorce by mutual consent and to hand over the child to them. Learned counsel urged that in the totality of the circumstances the petition as filed by the non-petitioner- husband deserves to be transferred to the competent court at Sangaria, the place of residence of the petitioner. It is noticed from the material as placed on record that the non-petitioner filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on 06.04.2007, the petitioner-wife put her appearance in the matter through counsel on 26.05.2007, and the petitioner filed her written statement on 16.07.2007. The proceedings were adjourned on 22.08.2007, 24.08.2007, 26.09.2007, and 01.11.2007 for reconciliation. The order-sheet dated 14.11.2007 records that a cheque in the sum of Rs. 13,500/- was offered by the counsel for the husband towards interim maintenance but the counsel for the petitioner-wife firstly refused to accept the cheque; then an amount of Rs. 1,500/- was paid cash; and thereafter, the cheque was also accepted by the counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-husband filed replication with an application and the matter was adjourned to 15.12.2007 for reply to the application and for reconciliation. For the same purpose, the matter was adjourned on 15.12.2007 to 05.01.2008. Progress of the proceedings on 3 and after 05.01.2008 has not been stated in this petition for transfer that has been filed only on 24.03.2008. So far the submission as made by the learned counsel that the husband and his relatives attempt to pressurize the petitioner to agree for divorce and to hand over the child is concerned, no such specific averment has been taken in this petition for transfer. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated threat perceptions in a vague and uncertain manner in the following words: “9. That the petitioner has apprehension that if she and remaining member of the family go to Sri Ganganagar, for contesting the case, then, the respondent and his family members will kill them in view of the threatening by the respondent. ……………………… “13. That the petitioner is a lady having great danger to her life, if she goes to Sri Ganganagar for attending the proceedings of learned court below, so the petitioner is filing this transfer for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court.” Noteworthy it is that the petitioner put her appearance in the proceedings at Sriganganagar as back as on 26.05.2007; did file her reply on 16.07.2007; and, as noticed above, interim maintenance has also been paid by the husband. It is not borne out from the material placed on record if the petitioner ever attended the proceedings at Sriganganagar and was attempted to be caused any physical harm or was deprived of exercising her free-will or was sought to be prevented in any 4 manner to get conducted her case properly. It has not been shown that for good 10 months the matter has proceeded in the Court at Sriganganagar before the petitioner has chosen to file this petition for transfer, if anything detrimental happened or was likely to happen and such facts were stated before the Court concerned. It is difficult to make out merely from the vague generalized averments as taken in this petition for transfer a specific case of existence of real danger to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Court at Srigangangar has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is also apparent from the order-sheets that the counsel has regularly been attending the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner. This Court is unable to find any cogent and convincing reason or circumstance wherefor it could be concluded that the petitioner has been or would be denied adequate opportunity to plead her case in the proceedings at Sriganganagar or would be prevented from conducting her case properly. In relation to the question of maintenance and litigation expenses, nothing prevents the petitioner from making appropriate application before the Court concerned. In fact, from the order sheet 14.11.2007 it appears that the non- petitioner has made payment towards maintenance. For any other difficulty, if any prayer for appropriate orders is made 5 before the Trial Court, it cannot be assumed that the Court concerned would not be giving the same due consideration keeping in view the requirement that no one should be deprived of adequate opportunity to place his/her case before the Courts of law merely for financial constraints or peculiar personal disabilities. True it is that in such matrimonial cases, ordinarily, the convenience of the lady is taken into consideration and a given case of genuine inconvenience could be considered for transfer where the relevant facts and factors make out a case of likelihood of denial of fair opportunity of hearing; but in the present case, in view of the fact that the petitioner has chosen to file this transfer petition nearly 10 months after putting appearance in the petition for dissolution of marriage and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not feel persuaded to entertain the present petition for transfer as moved by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this transfer petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 6