Shiv Narayan Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Sachan under Section
Case Details
Court No. - 6 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 290 of 2022 Applicant :- Smt. Jyoti Sachan Opposite Party :- Shiv Narayan Singh Counsel for Applicant :- Asharfi Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rahul Kumar,Karunesh Pratap Singh,Pratikdhar Dwivedi,Yakub Ali Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. This is a transfer application moved by the wife seeking transfer of Case No. 217 of 2021 Shiv Narayan Singh vs. Smt. Jyoti Sachan under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Vijyant Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.J. Akhtar along with Mr. Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party. It is pointed out that the parties were married according to Hindu rites on 07.12.2015 at Lucknow. It is the applicant's case that on account of cruelty in connection with dowry demand, the parties have turned an estranged couple. The applicant is now staying with her parents at Lucknow. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that two cases inter partes, one a criminal prosecution and another a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, are pending at Lucknow, as averred in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party is not providing maintenance to the applicant. She is unable to maintain herself or pay for the litigation involved. It is urged that the applicant has been threatened with dire consequences in case she attempts to come over to Chitrakoot and defend proceedings there. There is an averment made in this regard in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit. The further details of the threats extended on 07.04.2022 and 15.04.2022 at Chitrakoot, when the applicant appeared there, have been set out in paragraph no. 19 of the affidavit. It is next submitted that the distance between Lucknow and Chitrakoot is more than 250 kms. and the applicant has no one to escort her. She finds it very difficult to travel alone. It would be, particularly, difficult for her to travel on multiple dates that would be fixed during the course of trial. It is on these premises that the learned counsel for the applicant asks for a transfer of the proceedings from Chitrakoot to Lucknow. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has refuted the submissions urged on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party relying on paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit submits that when the opposite party went to Lucknow to apply for bail in the criminal case pending there, he faced threat to his life regarding which he complained to the police. In this connection, attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure No. CA-1. This Court must remark that though the complaint to the police is about intimidation faced by the opposite party, when he went to Lucknow to seek bail in Case Crime No. 797 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, P.S. Ashiyana District Lucknow, the tenor of the complaint shows that it is an official communication from the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Ballia to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. The opposite party ought not to have addressed the complaint in a manner which shows that he has thrown his weight as a State Official on the Police authorities. He could have just mentioned the fact that he is currently posted as the B.S.A. in District Ballia. This Court does not approve of the manner in which the complaint to the Police has been drawn up. Nevertheless, it is argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that he has a serious threat perception in case he is forced to attend at Lucknow. It is next submitted that the applicant owns two houses in Lucknow and two companies, namely M/s J.S. Enterprises and Pari Gauri Mining Private Ltd, where the applicant holds a mining site. It is also averred in paragraph no. 13 that the applicant's father and brother, Vikas Sachan and Ashok Sachan are men of criminal propensities. The applicant's father and brother are accused in Case Crime No. 44 of 2019 under Section 302 IPC P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. In the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has denied all these allegations and said that the remarks about her father and brother in paragraph no. 18 of the counter affidavit are derogatory. It is stated that they were falsely implicated in a criminal case, where a final report has been filed long back. A copy of the final report has been annexed as Annexure No. RA- 1. It is submitted that the applicant has no means of her own to defend at Chitrakoot and the opposite party being a Class-I Officer can conveniently defend at Lucknow. Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of opinion that there is a ring of truth to the grievance urged by both the parties. There is bitterness in the relationship and hostilities rife. It is true that the applicant has no resource of her own but the applicant's father and brother seem to be well placed in their business. In any event, their resources cannot be much considered to judge the applicant's station. She is a married woman with no career of her own. On the other hand, the opposite party is a Class-I Officer. He has resources of his own, which render him capable to defend anywhere in case the proceedings are transferred. At the same time, the apprehension that the opposite party has expressed about the threat to his life may or may not be true but can certainly be a bona fide apprehension. In the totality of the circumstances, and considering the distance between Lucknow and Chitrakoot which is more than 250 kms. and the fact that the convenience of wife generally has to be accorded primacy in causes matrimonial, this Court is of opinion that the interest of justice would be best served by ordering a transfer of proceedings subject matter of this application from Chitrakoot to Barabanki, that adjoins Lucknow.
Decision
In the result, this transfer application is allowed. Proceedings of Case No. 217 of 2021 Shiv Narayan Singh vs. Smt. Jyoti Sachan under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are withdrawn from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot and made over to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki, who shall proceed to try the petition himself or assign it to an Additional Principal Judge available on the Court, as he deems fit. In either case, trial shall be expedited and endeavour shall be made to conclude the same within six months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Let this order be communicated to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki by the Registrar (Compliance). Order Date :- 27.7.2022 Deepak Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.08.03 18:01:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad