IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2330 of 2007 Shobha Devi @ Shobha Kumari, daughter of Gobardhan Bhagat and wife of Dr. Manjit Prakash, resident of village- Sahebganj, P.S. Belhar, District- Banka. ……….Petitioner. -Versus- Dr. Manjit Prakash, Son of Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, resident of 39, A.P. Colony, P.S.Rampur, District- Gaya. ……Opposite Party. -- ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ------------ 14. 21.10.2008. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Shobha Devi @ Shobha Kumari wife of Dr. Manjit Prakash to transfer the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 34 of 2007 pending in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya to the court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Banka and alternatively to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur. Soon after the marriage, the relationships between the parties, broke up and the petitioner filed a complaint case No.1220/C of 2005 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka under Sections 498A, 323, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the opposite party and his family members. The opposite party moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and this Court had granted bail to the opposite party on the conditions that both the parties should live together at Gaya. I may point out here that the opposite party filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No.333 of 2005 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya after the petitioner was supposedly thrown out from the house of the - 2 - opposite party, for restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly, the petitioner and the opposite party went to Gaya after the order of this Court and the petitioner began to live with her husband. However, relationships soon became strained and when the petitioner’s parents came to meet her at Gaya, it is alleged that the opposite party alongwith his family members assaulted the parents and the petitioner. The petitioner lodged Rampur P. S. Case No. 121 of 2006 on 10.10.2006. It is also alleged that the petitioner was admitted in hospital at Gaya and after her discharge from the hospital, she went back to Gaya on 13.10.2006. The petitioner appeared in Matrimonial Title Suit No.333 of 2005 pending in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya which was registered for restitution of conjugal rights, in person as the matter was fixed for reconciliation, but the opposite party did not appear during the proceedings and the petitioner learnt that the Matrimonial Title Suit No.333 of 2005 was dismissed in default on 19.3.2007 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya. The back ground and the surrounding circumstances show that the relationship between the parties is strained. The petitioner and the opposite party appeared in person before me and the petitioner submitted that she is ready to live with her husband. The opposite party was adamant that he could no longer live with the petitioner for the reason that their relationship had reached a point, of no return whereas the petitioner raised serious contentions with respect to the divorce case filed by the petitioner and she wants to pursue the divorce case, being confident that after a lapse of time, the opposite - 3 - party would eventually agree to take back his wife and to keep her with dignity. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would have difficulty in pursuing the divorce case at Gaya for two reasons. It has been submitted that the family members of the opposite party are very influential and she is apprehensive for her safety in lieu of the fact that an incident had occurred earlier when the petitioner was living in the house of the opposite party. It is also contended that there is no direct train or means of communication from Banka to Gaya. The petitioner would have to travel from Banka to Patna via Bhagalpur and from Patna to Gaya. It is submitted that not only she will face a great hardship but also have to bear additional expenses of travelling a distance in order to defend herself in the divorce case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on the other hand submits that there is no family court at Banka and the opposite party would similarly have to face difficulty in coming to Patna from Bhagalpur to attend the case. It is further submitted that if this Court feels that it is essential to transfer the case from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya to any other Principal Judge, Family Court, the case should be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner has been left with no other nature and is facing - 4 - litigation due to attitude of the husband and she is incapable in moving from one city to other to seek justice. On the facts of this case and the submissions made by the counsels, I find that the petitioner would have to face a great difficulty in going to Gaya in view of the fact that she has been subject to assault while she was at Gaya after this Court had granted anticipatory bail to her husband. The contention of the opposite party that the petitioner has to attend the criminal case filed by her at Gaya does not find favour with me in view of the fact that it is not essential for the informant to be present on each and every date whereas in the matrimonial matter, the parties are to be present in court on each and every date. It can not be denied that the petitioner is again depended on her father and she has no independent income and would have to face hardship if the matrimonial suit is heard at Gaya. Considering all these aforesaid three facts, I direct that the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 34 of 2007 should be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur. The Principal Judge, Gaya is directed to send all the records to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur within a period of three weeks on receipt/ production of this order. The District Judge, Bhagalpur should try and expedite this case and should also try and solve the differences between the parties - 5 - in one way or the other. This application for transfer is thus allowed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)