Wife Failed To Make Out Case Of Inconvenience Or Hardship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Transfer Petition
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a transfer petition on the ground that the wife failed to make out a case of inconvenience or hardship.
A Single Bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti held, “… the petitioner has failed to make out a case of inconvenience or hardship inasmuch as, recently the petitioner herself is appearing in the Court at Anuppur in the other cases and recently on 11.04.2023, the petitioner has appeared in a case which is registered against the respondent under Section 498A of I.P.C. The counsel for respondent in the present case has also expressed that he is willing to bear the expenses which are required for appearance of the petitioner in the petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent/husband.”
Advocate Sunanda Kesharwani appeared for the applicant i.e., the wife while Advocate Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari appeared for the respondent i.e., the husband.
In this case, a plea was filed by the wife/applicant seeking transfer of a case pending before the First ADJ, Kotma, Anuppur to District Jabalpur. The counsel for the wife submitted before the Court that the husband/respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The counsel further contended that the respondent was an employee of Railways and on account of certain disputes which crept up between the parties, the same gave birth to various matrimonial disputes. The applicant had, therefore, filed an application against the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.PC. which was pending before the Family Court.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “… this Court is not inclined to transfer the case No.RCS HM No.40/19 from the Court of First Additional District Judge, Kotma, Anuppur District to District Jabalpur … However, the Court of First Additional District Judge, Kotma, Anuppur District is directed to ascertain and order payment of the expenses which are required to be paid by the respondent/husband to the petitioner/wife for securing her presence on the scheduled date of hearing.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea.
Cause Title- Sunaina Vishwakarma v. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma
