‘A-PrmcN AT istrCt ‘ VERSUS alprakas ,,~—...__ A #Ai—v i .—.A ‘ V' Di Ral H 7‘ g ‘ Jh Prashant Kumar l Mish I ransfer Petltl L o 22R00 PPLICAN . Smt Namuta Shnvast a v Versus r aIANT _- _ Jalprakash Slmvastav ppearance , hn Rav1sh Verma, counsel fér the apphcan S t hn Adh'raJ Surana, counsel for the non-appcant S h APPLICATION UNDE ECTION 151 OF C P RAL ORDE O R (31 08.2010 en ng before‘Famlly CourL‘Korb x1 ra r 7 \ T on ' N 7 "AT 3 B Hon’bl - S e, ‘ 'NONAPPLC a A ‘ R ‘ _ ,k u e ‘ S C ) -p a, r ‘ 5) , The resent etition ~f_or n£e ‘asvr"een Stibmsd? o 12/00 and the roceedins before th nureo/ 'std by h t. aye tis cour (6) C téit that “1m applicant is ot n‘ciauxsoun a m oer‘tio t earg ‘ Khh y m a mar relati; hwever‘hs‘ athezbeinoldanmm arid being i dbi u gy a: ue iaetc, agd also aiming ;,nde;r_gane>bypass ismea m incrabl erebelar atrophy, it is di$cult for him 'to compan‘theialicah urte; it‘lias been statedby the coilnselha’t the ahcantfeels' unsa wile ‘attndirig‘vthi 'cOurt"_trrKhatghra: as the noxEalieaii reatens of i,dire“consequcs e'tvr ‘e oes to an ‘ te aication that he divorcepeutlon has been submxmd to hatass the aheant and i ounsel for the pcitionr'_v§i6uld_'subni E n my¢ nd am m wand he hin it agora, she always needs-to “be mompafmed sb‘ her M 0t w di frgkd& a _ V ame 1n the tr s eta an e apcant is no g any problem 1n attendang court at Khathora He would s th h g _ at te Famxly Court at Khatghola have already granted travelin per ean'te‘ a fm f s e d expensestogxetherwahdarly allowanee‘@’ I 0* hnggh pryer or‘sfcr otheca’se deserve tb b dismisse ( p p , trasr hb itt n 1/127 ' pg e cétblwhas bean cl é§yppt. Fhr it pp fe h 'ee é§ ppjtl“ th bene 'Whiee' hh g itte‘d the m h ppl t pp hs (7) Counsel for the non—applicant has subnutted that the gtounds ~ td ansfer petttlon 1 Ml d th ph t ‘ M g ubuut ' app hily pébbl h t pi fe it ears gh rae ‘tatr he aplcant would ac iin whle ling i‘m Rip Kth s" nconvenece i trave o aur to hagora on the daie ( earng; Tre it s tat ‘te‘FailCourt has rante travein hoe i h ldy n r expenses, wver nconvenience to te la'and compesation fo ncurrng te mveling expenses are two indeenent'subjects (9) I h K y n te matter of Sumita Sin¢ :Vs. umar Sanja anoter, I 2002 SC 396, the Hon’blei Sureme Court has held h AR p j ith h h l g y e“ at wen te matnmoma proceedins have been Initiated b th usan, the Wie s convenience must be ooked into while deciding K th y f f h t r Vs. Samay Narendra Kumar Bhatmgar, 2001 AIR SCW 5219 ‘ad A (), e n nuradha Dalal Vs. Rohit Dalal, 2001 AIR SCW 4830 2 th on’ble Supreme Court has ordered trans i f f h ience nstance o Wie on te ground ofher conven (0) I h y - 1 n te entiret of the facts and circumstances of the ease, and k h dg d eeping in View te Jument of Supreme Court 1n the above referre h e ,0 \ matters trs court is eonvmced that the applicant has made out a eas f f f h C 7 horn Family Court, ' or transer o te ml Suit No 28-A/200 Kb C Khg , p s, ora, amp athora to the Farmly Court Ralur It i , aly d d y 1‘ ccordmg orered The Civrl Slut shall stan transferred to Famil hbd f l e praer or transer of te petition In the matters of Alka Dikshi Sd/— to Prashant kumar Mishra Judge if hi u i h h‘m'yl gd lg ii h lpd; H fer of the petition at the