Rutan Devi v. Vivek Prasad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Adv. --- Petitioner Opp. Party Order No.13 Dated 07 th November, 2012. The present petition has been preferred under Section 24(1)(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of Matrimonial Suit being MTS Case No. 74/2010 and Divorce Suit filed under Section 13(1)(1-A)(1-B), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending in the of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih to the Court of Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, where the petitioner has been residing. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of materials on record, it transpires that petitioner, being a lady, is residing at Ranchi with her old age parents. It also appears that the distance between Giridih and Ranchi is more than 150 Kms and therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to attend the courts at Giridih with limited resources. . In view of the above position, considering the comparative hardship, this petition is allowed. Consequently, let the records of Matrimonial Suit being MTS Case No. 74/2010 and Divorce Suit filed under Section 13(1)(1-A)(1-B), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, be transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. . Anu/- (P.P. Bhatt, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24(1)(B); Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.