,-^w^^y j^ -ysBSSi'Sy:^:.^'^•"•'^'^' s'^S^-iW;^.''"'^ ''''v: .'•:: ''". •/^TOt^^.^'^.''•..^n^-.^ -'^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHAmSGARH) T.P. {Cl No; ^ ^ /2010 " ^<fc- PETITIONER .: Smt. Prerfna Jurani, aged about 29 years, D/o Shri Tikaram, W/o Shri , Vijay Jurani, R/o M/s Laxman Das Parmanand, Grain Marchant, Shanichari Padav Bilaspur (C.G.) "1-^\-1' y~: ••''] ^'o^-':..-" - o'"" l.-y'' ^•" RESPONDENT VERSUS Vijay Jurani, aged about 31 years, S/o Late Shri Jagatram Jurani, R/o Ashwani Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipur (C.G.) TRANSFER PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T^P. (C)Jio.23^f 2010 PETITIONER Smt. PremaJurani Versus RESPONDENT Vijay Jurani ORDER For Pronouncenient of Order 2.0 .07.2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge /-• iS " % W '!%>>-?..».. te 1 TNIft S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T.P. fC) No. 23 of 2010 PETITIONER Smt. Prerna Jurani. Versus RESPONDENT Vijay Jurani. SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Smt. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D.Vaswani, counsel for fhe respondent. ORDER (Passedonz.o-7-2011) This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred seeking transfer of proceedings pending before the Family Court, Raipur instituted by the respondent for divorce, to Family Court, Bilaspur. 2. Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife would submit: the petitioner has small child of 7 years; has no source of income; it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Raipur; no male member is available as her companion for each and eveiy occasion when she is required to .attend the Court at Raipur; the respondent is trying to perform second marriage in utter violation of provisions of law i.e. before passing of decree of divorce; the petitioner is totally dependent on her father; the Raipur City is far away from the Bilaspur City and the petitioner is not in a position to bear the expenses required for attending Family Court at Raipur and a y false plea has been taken in the divorce petition by the respondent that the petitioner is suffering from an incurable inental disorder. Therefore, it is neither convenient nor possible for the petitioner to go and attend the Court situated at Raipur. 3. Reliance has been placed by Smt. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Vandana Shanna v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, (2008) 11 SCC 768, Rakhi Banerjee v. Subhankar Mukherfee, (2008) 17 SCC 59 and Samita Bhattacharjee v. Kulashekar Bhattacharfee, (2008) 17 SCC 482. 4. On the other hand, by denying the allegations levelled against the respondent and grounds taken in the petition, it was contended by Shri G.D. Vaswani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband that the petitioner is living in a joint family, in which, 8 major male members are available to accompany her during her visit to Raipur for attending the Court matter and in fact the petitioner comes to Raipur to attend the Court along with her brother Amit Nagdev, who is 25 years old. The Raipur City is only 109 kms. away from the Bilaspur City and it is only one hour and 45 minutes journey. Number of local trains are available besides other trains. The respondent is ready to pay amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court and is willing to bear aU expenses for travel and stay of the petitioner. The petitioner is regularly attending the Court without feeling inconvenience. However, the instant application has been preferred with the ulterior motive of stalling the proceedings when it reached to the stage of evidence. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anindita Das v. Sryit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197, Shri G.D. Vaswani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit: the transfer application has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is to be seen that distance between Bilaspur to Raipur is about 110 kms. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the inconvenience is of such nature where trial before the forum chosen by the respondent would result in denial of justice and that while attending the Court at Raipur, there is any such contingency which would debar the petitioner from conducting her case fairly. In the matter of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (supra), i.t has been observed by the HonTsle Supreme Court that leniency shown by the Court in favour of women and giving weight to their convenience is being misused. In the matter of Dav Boys Senior Secondary School and Others V. Dav College Managing CommiUee, (2010) 8 SCC 401, it has been held by the HonTsle Supreme Court that mere convenience of the "^ ;':} parties not enough to seek transfer but it must be shown that ta-ial before the chosen foruni would result in denial of justice to the person seeking transfer. 7. Now, reverting to the facts of the case, the divorce application preferred by the respondent is pending since 2009 and the matter is reached to the stage of evidence. Till then, the petitioner has not felt any inconvenience in attending Family Court at Raipur. The respondent is also ready and wUling to bear all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the Court at Raipur and is also willing to pay interim maintenance granted by the Court regularly. 8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the transfer application. However, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (supra), the respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- in advance towards travel and stay expenses to the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the Court at Raipur and also shall pay entire arrears of interim maintenance and keep on paying interim maintenance regularly. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application stands disposed of. Sd/- N.K. Agarwai Judge