IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.672 of 2008 BINITA DEVI Versus JITENDRA KUMAR PATHAK ----------- Advocates for the petitioner:- Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra 3 16.9.2008 Notice was issued in this case on 21.4.2008. As per the office note and from the note of the process server it appears that the notice was received by the father of the opposite party and the office has treated notice to be validly served on the opposite party. However, nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party to oppose this application. This application has been filed to transfer the Matrimonial Case 57 of 2006/59 of 2006 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The petitioner was married to the opposite party in the year 1993. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a resident of Ranchi and it is stated that she is now living at Ranchi with her mother. Apparently for some reason or the other, the petitioner had left her house and a case - 2 - was filed by the opposite party for restitution of conjugal rights. The decree was passed in favour of the opposite party and as such the petitioner went to live with her husband at Aurangabad. While she was living at Aurangabad with her husband, it is submitted that she was ill-treated and driven out of her home by the husband. The husband opposite party filed a criminal case against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has an affair with her cousin. In order to pursue the criminal case at Aurangabad the petitioner had to travel to Aurangabad. The allegation is that while she was attending the Court at Aurangabad she was threatened by a group of persons who were friends/associates of the opposite party. The petitioner filed an application before the Family Court at Aurangabad and she was given police protection to travel back to Ranchi. In fact she was escorted by the police party from Sherghati to Ranchi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the aforesaid incident, the petitioner does not have the courage to come to Aurangabad to attend the Court, which has been - 3 - reported on 14.11.2007 to the Court vide annexure-2. Because of this situation the petitioner finds it impossible to pursue the divorce case. The petitioner has filed the written statement in the divorce case in which it has been stated that she has apprehension that her life is in danger, if she comes to Aurangabad. In the written statement the petitioner has also made a prayer that she may be allowed to defend her case through her lawyer. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the prayer has been disallowed. This Court while considering the aforesaid facts, needs to consider, the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Ranchi and ordinarily the application should have been filed for transferring the matter to Ranchi however, the counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, this Court may apply the same principles and transfer the case to Patna which will be convenient for both the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioner has some relations in Patna so it would be very - 4 - convenient for her to attend the Court at Patna. In cases of divorce, the convenience of the wife ought to be considered by the Court, as she is usually the victim in such cases. In view of the facts stated aforesaid I think it will be just and reasonable to transfer the Matrimonial Case No. 57 of 2006/59 of 2006 pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad is directed to send the records to the Family Court at Patna. This application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)