SBCTP No.57/2008 Meenu Garg Vs. Pankaj Garg 1 S.B. Civil Transfer Petition No.57/2008 Meenu Garg Vs. Pankaj Garg DATE OF ORDER : - 27.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Sachin Acharaya, for the petitioner. Mr.RR Nagori, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner submitted that she has one minor child,her parents are old, and she is facing the divorce petition at Bhilwara as the same has been filed by the respondent. It is stated that though the divorce petition was submitted in the year 2004 wherein maintenance has been awarded against the respondent and that amount has not been paid in time and ultimately, the trial court at Bhilwara stayed the further proceedings in the divorce petition, then the respondent ultimately, paid the maintenance amount in the year 2008 then petitioner submitted this application stating therein that she already has filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Jaipur and criminal case under Section 498A IPC and since the distance between Jaipur and Bhilwara is more than 200 SBCTP No.57/2008 Meenu Garg Vs. Pankaj Garg 2 kms, therefore, the petitioner cannot go and attend the proceedings at Bhilwara. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the divorce petition may be transferred to court at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that reply has been filed and certified copies of the various proceedings have been placed on record, which clearly demonstrate that the character of the petitioner was not good and she tried to harass the respondent with the help of police. It is also submitted that absolutely false criminal case was launched wherein the respondent was acquitted by the court at Jaipur by detailed judgment. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case delivered in Neelam Bhatia Vs. Satbir Singh Bhatia reported in II(2006) DMC 594 (SC) instead of sending the matter to the place of the lady directed the respondent to pay the travelling expenses and expenses for the attendant,who may travel with the wife. It is also submitted that in this case also, the respondent has already paid huge amount which is more than Rs.1,38,250/- and is bound to pay the maintenance amount as awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. annd under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also SBCTP No.57/2008 Meenu Garg Vs. Pankaj Garg 3 submitted that the court below has also ordered for payment of travelling expenses for the petitioner as well as her attendant. In that situation, there is no reason to transfer the case, which has been instituted in the court having jurisdiction. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts in detailed referred by the parties. It may be true that respondent faced litigation at Jaipur in past, but that may be injury already suffered by him. The controversy before this court at present is that whether it is a fit case for transfer of divorce petition from Bhilwara to Jaipur or not. The petitioner is a lady having minor child as well as old father and mother, who alleged to have been suffering from diseases. If she can come to Bhilwara then it will be more appropriate and convenient for the respondent to travel to Jaipur to attend the court proceedings. In the facts and circumstances of the case mere payment of maintenance amount and even travelling expenses cannot redress the grievance of the petitioner. In case the petition is transferred to Jaipur then certainly the SBCTP No.57/2008 Meenu Garg Vs. Pankaj Garg 4 petitioner shall not been entitled to any travelling expenses for herself and for her attendant and she will be entitled to only maintenance, which has been granted for her by the court below. In view of the above reasons, the cause of justice will meet if the divorce petition no.125/2004 (237/08) is transferred to the court of Family Court No.1, Jaipur. Hence, the transfer petition is allowed and the divorce petition no.125/2004 (237/08) is transfered from the court of District Judge, Bhilwara to the court of Family Court No.1, Jaipur. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur on 20th April, 2009. However, it is also ordered that both the parties shall be cooperative to the trial court in deciding the matter expeditiously. In case there will be deliberate delay by the petitioner in getting the case decided, then the respondent will be free to approach this Court for re-transfer of the case. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-