MCA/118/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR TRANSFER No. 118 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = ARCHANABEN PARESHBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus PARESHBHAI HARSHADBHAI PATEL - Opponent(s) ========================================= = Appearance : MS MEGHA JANI for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present application is filed by the applicant-wife under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for appropriate MCA/118/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT order of transferring H.M.P. No. 4/2007, pending in the Court of learned Seventh Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot to the Family Court, Ahmedabad. 2. It is also further prayed by way of amendment that Execution Petition No. 289/2007, pending in the Court of learned Principal Civil Jude, Rajkot be transferred to the Family Court, Ahmedabad. 3. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the opponent-husband. H.M.P No. 4/2007 has been filed by the opponent-husband in the Court of learned Seventh Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot against the applicant-wife. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the applicant-wife that she is residing at Ahmedabad and as she has no independent income, it is not possible for the applicant-wife to go to Rajkot for defending the aforesaid H.M.P. Therefore, it is requested to transfer the aforesaid H.M.P from Rajkot to Family Court, Ahmedabad. 5. Ms Megha Jani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUMITA SINGH Vs KUMAR SANJAY reported in AIR 2002 SC 396. 6. Having heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, it is not in dispute that the applicant is the wife of the opponent-husband. H.M.P No. 4/2007 is filed by the opponent-husband at Rajkot against the applicant-wife. It is MCA/118/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT averred in the application that the applicant is residing at Ahmedabad and she has no independent income and it is not possible for the applicant, as it will be inconvenient for the applicant, to travel to Rajkot and defend the aforesaid H.M.P. It is also submitted that even the Execution Petition No. 289/2007 is also required to be transferred to the Family Court, Ahmedabad for similar reasons. 7. In the Case of SUMITA SINGH Vs KUMAR SANJAY (supra) while dealing with Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code in the matrimonial proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the convenience of the wife that must be looked at. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court transferred the H.M.P. to the place where the wife was residing. 8. Considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application is required to be allowed. H.M.P. No. 4/2007, pending with the learned Seventh Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot as well as Execution Petition No. 289/2007, pending with the learned Principal Civil Judge, Rajkot are ordered to be transferred to the Family Court, Ahmedabad. 9. The application is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. (M.R. SHAH, J.) siji