1 2 S.B. CIVIL TRANSFER APPLN. NO.1/2008. Smt. Sushma Vs. Naveen Kumar Date of Order :: 11th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.P. Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Jain, for the non-petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: In this transfer application, notices for final disposal were ordered to be issued on 18.01.2008 returnable within four weeks and further proceedings in Case No. 179/2007 pending in the Family Court, Udaipur were ordered to remain stayed for five weeks. Notices were returned unserved for want of correct and complete address and the matter was placed for orders before the Court on 03.03.2008. On 03.03.2008, this Court passed the following order: “Notices have been returned back unserved for want of correct and complete address. The petitioner should file notices on correct and complete present address of the non-petitioner within two weeks. On being questioned, if the petitioner has filed reply to the petition pending before the Family Court at Udaipur, learned counsel expresses want of instructions in that regard. If the petitioner has not filed reply so far, it shall be required of the petitioner to file reply to the petition as pending before the Family Court, Udaipur and for that purpose, the petitioner may send reply by 2 registered post to the court concerned while sending copy to the non-petitioner by the same mode; and it shall be required of the petitioner to file copy of such reply before this court. Two weeks' time is granted for the purpose, as prayed. If a copy of reply and notices on correct and complete address of the non-petitioner in two sets are filed within two weeks, the same may be issued, returnable on 27.03.2008. One set may be given 'Dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service on the non-petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due. It shall be required of the petitioner to file postal receipt of the notices also to the Registry of this Court within a week of issuance of notices.” Per the force of the order dated 03.03.2008, the petitioner was required to file reply within two weeks thereof and if a copy of the reply and notices on correct and complete present address of the non-petitioner were filed within two weeks, the office was to issue the notices in this petition, returnable on 27.03.2008. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has neither filed nor sent any such reply. However, the petitioner did file notices in this petition on 04.03.2008; and the office, in utter disregard to the requirements of the order dated 03.03.2008, issued the notices as filed by the petitioner. Notices were ordered to be awaited on 27.03.2008 and the matter was ordered to be placed today. The non-petitioner, having been served with registered post notices, has put in appearance through counsel. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted on instructions and with reference to a copy of the medical certificate that the petitioner fell ill and was suffering from fever since 06.03.2008 and hence could not file reply within time; and further submitted that if the time for filing reply is enlarged, the petitioner shall be putting in the same now within time. The submissions are not convincing. The copy of medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Maroth (Nagaur) carrying OPD No.52 dated 06.03.2008 as shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner even when taken into consideration only gives out that the petitioner was suffering from fever and was advised five days’ rest on 06.03.2008. The petitioner was required to file reply within two weeks from 03.03.2008 and there appears no reason why the petitioner could not have carried out compliance of the order dated 03.03.2008 even if she be taken to have fallen ill on 06.03.2008 and having been advised rest for 5 days. Moreover, the conduct on the part of the petitioner in having filed fresh notices on 04.03.2008 without informing that the reply has not been filed as required by the order dated 03.03.2008 cannot be appreciated. The approach of the office in issuing the notices so filed without even looking at the 4 requirements of the order dated 03.03.2008 is also difficult to be appreciated. Leaving such shortcomings aside, it is evident that the petitioner was aware of the requirements of the order dated 03.03.2008, of filing reply within two weeks. Even if the petitioner had any difficulty in filing the reply, nothing prevented her from bringing the facts to the notice of the Court within reasonable time. The prayer as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner today for enlargement of time seems only to be eyewash and does not inspire confidence. Apart from the conduct of the petitioner aforesaid, even on merits this Court is unable to find any ground or reason to consider transfer of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights as pending before the Family Court, Udaipur at her instance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the non-petitioner-plaintiff is stationed at Beawar and the petitioner is residing with her parents at village Maroth, District Nagaur; and, with reference to the distance of respective places, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would be required to travel about 550 kms. to attend the proceeding at Family Court, Udaipur while distance of Patbarsar, whereto the petitioner is seeking transfer of the case, from Beawar is only about 120 kms. and thus it would be convenient even for the non-petitioner-plaintiff to pursue the matter at Parbatsar. 5 Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is a lady and her parents are in old age and are unable to accompany her for the purpose of attending the dates of hearing before the Family Court at Udaipur and, therefore, it shall be in the interest of justice that the matter be transferred to Parbatsar. It is not the case of the petitioner that the non-petitioner has intentionally filed the proceedings at Udaipur or that the Udaipur Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In the circumstances of the case when the non-petitioner is said to be stationed at Beawar and has filed the petition at Udaipur, there appears no reason wherefor the petition be considered for transfer to Parbatsar at the instance of the petitioner. So far any other inconvenience of the petitioner is concerned, nothing prevents her from making appropriate application before the Family Court concerned for appropriate orders. However, the submissions as made in this transfer petition do not make out a case for transfer nor this Court finds any ground to conclude that the petitioner would be deprived of adequate opportunity of hearing in the proceedings at Udaipur filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the non-petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, this transfer application fails and is, therefore, rejected. Mohan/ (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J.