Smt. Aruna Singh v. Tej Pratap Singh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
transfer application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Applicant :- Smt. Aruna Singh Opposite Party :- Tej Pratap Singh Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Devendra Kumar Patel Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Devendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is wife of opposite party and residing at Barilly and opposite party has filed Case No. 178 of 2023 before Family Court, Budaun, which is around 52 kilometers away from District Bareilly, therefore, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings at District Budaun on each date fixed and defend effectively. He lastly submitted that Apex Court has taken constant view that in such cases convenience of the wife has to be taken into consideration. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mona Aresh Goel vs.
Operative part
Aresh Satya Goel, (2000) 9 SCC 255, Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, (2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajni Kumari v. Raghvinder Sahay alias Babu, (2011) 11 SCC 176 and Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, (2016) 14 SCC 356 respectively. Sri Devendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the submission, but could not dispute the legal and factual submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. I have considered rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for parties and perused the records as well as judgments relied upon by counsel for applicant. Facts of the case are not disputed and controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments relied upon by counsel for applicant. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of Case No.
178 of 2023 is withdrawn from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun. Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun is directed to transmit the record of Case No. 178 of 2023 to Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, endeavour shall be made to decide the aforesaid case maximum within a period of six months as provided in Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Principal Judge, Family Court Bareilly or other Additional Judge as per the Rules of the Family Court. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Junaid JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: transfer application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 01 May 2025. The bench was PRINCIPAL, BUDAUN PRINCIPAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.