Ankit Pandey v. Pallavi Pandey) pending in the court of Additional Principal Judge, Fa

by the learned counsel for the respondent that the father of the applicant is a leading lawyer in District Basti and he does not have adequate protection. He apprehends that in case if the respondent contest the proceedings at Basti, some harm may be caused which would not be conducive. It is also urged that the respondent who is the petitioner in the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, has moved an application for visitation rights which came to be rejected and the respondent has already filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing F.A.F.O. No.252 of 2024, however no orders of visitation has been passed till date.

9. It is further submitted that the respondent is working at New Delhi and in order to attend the proceedings at Basti, he will have to travel around 750 kilometers and being in the private sector, it is not feasible for him to get holidays or leave to conduct the proceedings and in such circumstances, it is the respondent who will suffer greater hardships. Accordingly, the application deserves to be dismissed.

10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

11. Noticing the aforesaid as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in 2002 (10) SCC 480, in the case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686, in the case of Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589 and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial litigation, a transfer petition at the behest of the wife must be considered liberally and also noticing her preference be given precedence.

12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, it would reveal that whether the proceedings are contested at Lucknow where the proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act are pending or in Basti where the divorce suit is pending, the fact remains that insofar as the respondent is concerned, he will have to travel either way either to Lucknow or Basti. The applicant who is stationed at Basti, if required to contest the proceedings at Lucknow, would have to travel with a child with special needs. Since the petition pending at Lucknow is a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, accordingly, the child of the parties also would have to be present before the Court at some stage or the other.

13. It is not disputed between the parties that their child is a child with special need and it is most inconvenient to make such a child travel to attend the court proceedings at Lucknow.

14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the clear opinion that the proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No.8, Lucknow be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Basti.

15. This Court directs that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No.8, Lucknow shall forthwith transfer the proceedings of Regular Suit No.366 of 2023 to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Basti who shall on receiving the records, shall try both the petitions under Guardian and Wards Act and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act together, as expeditiously as possible.

16. In case if any of the parties attempt to misuse the liberty or seek unnecessary adjournments, the court should take note of it and appropriate costs in progression as indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj and another(supra) shall be fixed on the parties misusing the liberty and an attempt would be made by the Principal Judge to decide the matters preferably within a period of eight months from the parties appear in the proceedings before the court at Basti. Costs are made easy.

17. With the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

by the learned counsel for the respondent that the father of the applicant is a leading lawyer in District Basti and he does not have adequate protection. He apprehends that in case if the respondent contest the proceedings at Basti, some harm may be caused which would not be conducive. It is also urged that the respondent who is the petitioner in the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act, has moved an application for visitation rights which came to be rejected and the respondent has already filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court bearing F.A.F.O. No.252 of 2024, however no orders of visitation has been passed till date.

9. It is further submitted that the respondent is working at New Delhi and in order to attend the proceedings at Basti, he will have to travel around 750 kilometers and being in the private sector, it is not feasible for him to get holidays or leave to conduct the proceedings and in such circumstances, it is the respondent who will suffer greater hardships. Accordingly, the application deserves to be dismissed.

10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

11. Noticing the aforesaid as well as the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in 2002 (10) SCC 480, in the case of Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686, in the case of Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589 and in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 wherein it has been held that in matrimonial litigation, a transfer petition at the behest of the wife must be considered liberally and also noticing her preference be given precedence.

12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, it would reveal that whether the proceedings are contested at Lucknow where the proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act are pending or in Basti where the divorce suit is pending, the fact remains that insofar as the respondent is concerned, he will have to travel either way either to Lucknow or Basti. The applicant who is stationed at Basti, if required to contest the proceedings at Lucknow, would have to travel with a child with special needs. Since the petition pending at Lucknow is a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, accordingly, the child of the parties also would have to be present before the Court at some stage or the other.

13. It is not disputed between the parties that their child is a child with special need and it is most inconvenient to make such a child travel to attend the court proceedings at Lucknow.

14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the clear opinion that the proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No.8, Lucknow be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court at Basti.

15. This Court directs that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No.8, Lucknow shall forthwith transfer the proceedings of Regular Suit No.366 of 2023 to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Basti who shall on receiving the records, shall try both the petitions under Guardian and Wards Act and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act together, as expeditiously as possible.

16. In case if any of the parties attempt to misuse the liberty or seek unnecessary adjournments, the court should take note of it and appropriate costs in progression as indicated by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj and another(supra) shall be fixed on the parties misusing the liberty and an attempt would be made by the Principal Judge to decide the matters preferably within a period of eight months from the parties appear in the proceedings before the court at Basti. Costs are made easy.

17. With the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench