Arun Agnihotri v. Smt.Shauya Dubey) under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139994 Court No. - 37 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 132 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt Shauvya Dubey Opposite Party :- Arun Agnihotri Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Gupta Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Legal Reasoning
9. There is no dispute about the fact that divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by opposite party/ husband is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Hathras. 10. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit will be relevant which are as under:- "15. That in the Complaint Case No.2427 of 2018 in under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Kurawali, District- Mainpuri, trial is going on before the Learned Court below. 16. That thereafter the applicant has filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 06.06.2018 for interim maintenance before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri which of 2018 is registered as Case No.247 (Smt.Shauya Dubey & another Vs. Arun Kumar Agnihotri). A true copy of the Plaint dated 06.06.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this affidavit. 17. That thereafter the opposite party has filed his objection before the Learned Court below on 22.01.2019. A true copy of the Objection dated 22.01.2019 in Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.7 to this affidavit. 18. That it is very difficult for the applicant to attend the Court in Hathras after traveling nearly 150 Kms without assistance of any male member. 19. That the father of the applicant is become ill, due to which no male member to escort her for his case which is pending before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Hathras. 20. That there is too much difficulty arose for the applicant to do pairvi at 150 Kms away, so may kindly take the liberal view and transfer her case from Hathras to District-Mainpuri in the interest of justice." 11. In view of the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application as quoted above coupled with the fact that opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by the applicant/ wife, the instant transfer application should be allowed. 12. Apex Court in the case reported in (2016) 14 Supreme Court Cases 356 Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap has transferred the proceeding of divorce petition filed by husband to the place where wife reside. Paragraph No.1 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap (Supra) will be relevant for perusal which are as under :- "Leave granted. 2. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the High Court of Bombay declined to transfer the case, filed in Mumbai by the respondent for divorce, to Barshi where the appellant resides-parental home. The Review Petition was also dismissed. The High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not have to travel on all days for defending the case, and on the days of her travel, she will be paid a sum of rupees one thousand five hundred. 3. According to the appellant, her mother is aged and it is difficult for her mother to accompany the appellant for her travel to Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three criminal cases - one for maintenance, the second under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the third under Section 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the civil side for restitution. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for transfer. It was submitted that the appellant’s mother is only 60 years old and that she has two brothers. It is also pointed out that majority of the witnesses are from Mumbai and it would be difficult for them to travel to Barshi, and, in any case, the attempt is to harass the respondent-husband. 5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases between the parties are pending at Barshi. Apparently, the comparative hardship is more to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter, unfortunately, the High Court has missed to take note of.
Arguments
1. Heard counsel for the applicant/wife and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party/ husband. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is wife and opposite party is husband. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed on behalf of the opposite party/husband is pending in the Family Court at Hathras. 3. The instant transfer application has been filed for the following relief:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased allow this application and transfer the Marriage Dissolution Suit No.64 of 2022 (Arun Agnihotri Vs. Smt.Shauya Dubey) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriages Act, pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Hathras to the concerned court of District-Mainpuri. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Marriage Dissolution Suit No.64 of 2022 (Arun Agnihotri Vs. Smt. Shauya Dubey) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriages Act, pending in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Hathras to the concerned court of District-Mainpuri, during pendency of present case before this Hon'ble Court." 4. This Court entertained the matter on 29.2.2024 and stayed the proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is quoted as under :- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. This transfer application has been filed by the applicant to transfer the Divorce Petition No. 64 of 2022 (Arun Agnihotri vs. Smt. Shaurya Dubey), under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras to the court of competent jurisdiction in district Mainpuri. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The applicant wife is presently residing in district Mainpuri. The applicant wife had filed a complaint against opposite party before the ACJM, Mainpuri, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2427 of 2018. She has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which was registered as Case No. 247 of 2018. Both the cases filed by the applicant are pending in the judgeship of Mainpuri. It is further submitted that the opposite party has filed the aforesaid case on altogether incorrect facts only to harass the applicant, which is pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras. District Hathras is much away from district Mainpuri. The applicant being deserted wife of opposite party having no source of income, is facing great hardship to attend the court proceedings at Judgeship of Hathras. The matter requires consideration. Issue notice to opposite party. Steps be taken within one week by registered post. List after two months. Until further orders of this Court further proceeding of Divorce Petition No. 64 of 2022 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras shall remain stayed. " 5. In pursuance of the order dated 29.2.2024, opposite party has filed his counter affidavit. 6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the pendency of the cases between the parties at Mainpuri, the proceeding of divorce petition filed by opposite party/ husband in the Family Court Hathras should be transferred to Mainpuri. He further placed the averment made in paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant transfer application in order to demonstrate the case of transfer from Hathras to Mainpuri. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party/ husband submitted that opposite party/ husband has no objection to the prayer of transfer made by applicant/ wife. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Decision
6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and the M. J.Petition No. 2287 of 2013 filed by the respondent-husband in Family Court Bandra, Bombay will stand transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Barshi. 7. The appeals are allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs." 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the instant transfer application is allowed. The proceeding of case No. 64 of 2022 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Principal Judge Family Court Hathras is transferred to Family Court at Mainpuri. The Family Court Hathras is directed to transmit the records of the case No.64 of 2022 forthwith to the Family Court Mainpuri. The Family Court, Mainpuri is directed to decide the case No.64 of 2022 (Arun Agnihotri Vs. Smt. Shauya Dubey) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording proper opportunity to both the parties. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Vandana Y. Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad