CIVIL MISC. TRANSFER APPLICATION No. 32 of 2012 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Nov 2012
- Bench
- R S CHAUHAN
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ss. 24, 151
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 125
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 323, 406, 498A
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 9
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Dr. Shailendra Kala for the applicant. Mr. Arjun Purohit for the respondent. The applicant-wife, Smt. Shilpa Trivedi, has filed this transfer application inter alia on the ground that she has already filed two cases under Sections 125 Cr.P.C and under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC against the respondent- husband. Both the cases are pending before the courts at Jodhpur. Meanwhile, the respondent-husband, has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court No.1, Jaipur. According to her, she feels extremely difficult to travel to Jaipur, whereas her husband is attending the proceedings in the aforementioned two cases at Jodhpur. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant happens to be a young lady who finds it difficult to travel from Jodhpur to Jaipur. In case she were not to appear at Jaipur, the proceedings will continue as ex-parte against her. Therefore, she would be denied the right to justice. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the inconvenience of a party cannot be a ground for transferring the case. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court has to be sensitive to the practical difficulties faced by a woman while traveling. The Court can neither ignore the concept of gender justice, nor ignore the fact that the woman is entitled to seek justice as much as a man. Moreover, the applicant cannot be denied access to justice. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice to direct the Family Court No.1, Jaipur to send the file of Case No.273/2012 (Anirudh Azad V/s. Smt. Shilpa Trivedi) to Family Court at Jodhpur. With these directions, this transfer application is, hereby, allowed. A.Asopa/- (R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — ss. 24, 151; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 323, 406, 498A; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 22 Nov 2012. The bench was R S CHAUHAN.
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.