Smt. Pooja Mishra v. Shri Ankit Kumar Upadhyay
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 13
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Two weeks' time, thereafter is granted to the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
The present application has been filed seeking transfer of Case No. 466 of 2024 (Ankit Kumar Vs. Smt. Pooja), under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the court of Family Court, Allahabad to the Judgeship of Sonabhadra.
The transfer has been sought citing inconvenience of the applicant.
In view of the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Rajni Kumari v. Raghvinder Sahay alias Babu, (2011) 11 SCC 176, Anjali Ashok Sadhwani v. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1374, Fatema v. Jafri Syed Husain (Parvez), AIR 2009 SC 1773, Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel, (2000) 9 SCC 255, Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41 and Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, (2016) 14 SCC 356, prima facie case for indulgence stands made out, however, final opinion regarding transfer of the concerned case shall be made only after hearing the other side.
Issue notice to the opposite party. Steps be taken by ordinary post as well as by registered speed post within ten days. In case, steps are not taken, the case shall be listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the High Court Rules.
Four weeks' time is granted to the opposite party for filing counter affidavit.
Two weeks' time, thereafter is granted to the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of aforesaid case shall remain stayed.
List this case on 14.5.2025. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 Junaid
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 03 Apr 2025. The bench was NEERA.
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.