1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. TRANSFER PETITION NO.7/2009. Smt. Anita Vs. Kailash Date of Order :: 2nd March 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. I.R. Choudhary, for the applicant. .... BY THE COURT: Though listed in Court No.4, learned counsel for the applicant has made a mention stating urgency. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant – wife and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider transfer of the matrimonial case said to be pending in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner (Civil Misc. No.346/2008). It appears from the material placed on record that the aforesaid is a petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the non-applicant – husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that was registered on 13.10.2008 and notices were ordered to be issued. On 24.11.2008, the learned Trial Court noticed that the notices sent to the applicant – wife were not received served or unserved; and fresh notices were ordered to be issued by registered post and the case was fixed on 19.01.2009. On 19.01.2009, appearance was put on behalf of the applicant – wife in the said matrimonial case and adjournment was sought for filing of the reply that was granted; and the case was adjourned to 2 04.03.2009. It appears that after service of the notices in the said matrimonial case, the applicant chose to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Family Court at Jodhpur (Case No.7/2009) on 07.01.2009 and therein notices were ordered to be issued, returnable on 13.03.2009. A copy of such application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has also been annexed with this transfer application and the allegations therein are to the effect that the applicant – wife was driven out of the matrimonial house way back in the month of July 2004. The applicant – wife further chose to file, on 14.01.2009, an application, purportedly under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005, ('the Act of 2005') in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3 Jodhpur (Case No.24/2009). Thereafter, this petition seeking transfer of the case pending at Bikaner to a competent court at Jodhpur has been filed in this Court only on 25.02.2009 essentially on the submissions that the applicant Smt. Anita is a young lady having a young child about 9 years of age and it is not possible for her to take journey to Bikaner without an escort; that there is every likelihood that upon her attending the matter at Bikaner, the non-applicant could file false cases against her and her escort; that if the divorce proceedings pending in the Court of District Judge at Bikaner are 3 transferred to the Family Court at Jodhpur, the non-applicant husband would not face any problem and such transfer would be in the interest of justice; and that the other proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 are pending in the Courts at Jodhpur. Looking to the overall circumstances, the submissions as made in this transfer application hardly appear making out a case for transfer of the matter from Bikaner to Jodhpur. So far pendency of the cases at Jodhpur is concerned, it is at once clear that such cases were filed by the applicant only after she had been served with the notices for appearance before the Court at Bikaner. It is rather strange that while alleging herself having been driven out of the matrimonial house way back in the month of July 2004, the applicant chose to file the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only on 07.01.2009; and then, chose to file another application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 only on 14.01.2009. The proceedings at Jodhpur, prima facie, appear to have been filed only as a counter blast to the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the husband. Without any further comment on the merits of such cases, for the present purposes, suffice is to say that such proceedings filed only after acquiring knowledge of the proceedings at Bikaner do not provide any ground to the applicant to seek transfer of the case to Jodhpur. 4 So far the alleged inconvenience is concerned, it is noticed that the said petition for dissolution of marriage is being tried by the Court of District Judge at Bikaner wherein appearance was put on behalf of the applicant on 19.01.2009 by the lawyer while filing Vakalatnama. It does not appear that the applicant would be required to attend each and every date of hearing at Bikaner; and in case of any other difficulty, it is always open for her to make appropriate submissions before the Court trying the matter; and there is no reason to assume that if any reasonable submission is made, the same would not be given due consideration by the learned Trial Court. The suggestion about likelihood of filing of false cases by the non-applicant – husband at Bikaner upon her attending the case remains imaginary and does not appear to be having any basis whatsoever nor does it appear that such submissions were at all made before the learned District Judge trying the matter. In the overall circumstances, the present one does not appear to be appropriate a matter where the proceedings pending before the District Judge at Bikaner be ordered to be transferred at the instance of the applicant. The transfer application stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. 5 MK