IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1881 of 2009 SHAIL SINHA W/O SHRI MOTILAL SINHA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT EAST ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO. 13, P.O, LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAG, DISTRICT PATNA-20 Versus MOTILAL SINHA SON OF SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN SINHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAIRA P.O. KHAIRA P.S. KHAIRA DISTT JAMUI AT PRESENT SHYAM NAGAR VIVEKANAND NAGAR NEAR NEHRU MARKET, SHYAM NAGAR NORTH 24 PARGANA, WEST BENGAL ----------- 8 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party. This application is for transfer of Divorce Case No. 10/09 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Jamui to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Patna. It is submitted that initially the opposite party had filed a Matrimonial Case No. 66/02 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge, Munger, in which petitioner appeared and thereafter the case was decreed. The petitioner went to the place of opposite party to live as a husband wife. However, the petitioner was not allowed to remain there. Thereafter the petitioner had filed a complaint Case No. 1514 (C)/03 against the opposite party for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna. The case ended into compromise vide order as contained in Annexure-3. 2 Learned counsel submits that the opposite party in order to harass the petitioner has filed the present divorce case in the Court of Principal Judge, Jamui, whereas the petitioner is somehow live in Patna with her brother and as such it is very difficult for her to attend the courts on the date fixed at Jamui in the aforesaid case besides for want of money. Although the petitioner has not filed any case for claiming maintenance, however, the opposite party is also not paying any money to meet her both ends meet. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied upon a decision, of the Apex Court in the case of Anajli Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, reported in 2009(1) P.L.J.R 242(SC) in support of her case. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that although he is working at Calcutta as a labour, however, his parents are residing at Jamui and as such the opposite party had filed the aforesaid case for divorce at Jamui. It is further submitted that Jamui is not far away from Patna i.e., 150 K.M and as such petitioner can easily come to Jamui. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, this Court finds that there is no valid justification for filing the divorce case at Jamui 3 as neither petitioner nor the opposite party is residing at Jamui. There is no dispute that the marriage was solemnized at Patna where the petitioner is residing. The decision of the Apex Court, as referred to the above, supports the case of the petitioner where, in the similar circumstances the Matrimonial Case was transferred to the place where the wife was residing. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the Divorce Case No. 10/2009 be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Patna within a period of six weeks on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The parties are directed to appear in the aforesaid case at Patna on 15th of February 2011, when date for further proceedings shall be fixed in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court Patna. Let a copy of the order be communicated to Principal Judge, Jamui and Principal Judge, Patna for needful. The application is accordingly allowed. Amrendra/ (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)