Full Judgment
K.L. Shrivastava, J.
1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (for short 'the Code') for transfer of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act') from the Court of the District Judge Indore to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam.
2. Circumstances giving rise to the application are these. The petitioner is the wife of the non-applicant. The non-applicant first filed ae application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights which he ultimately got dismissed on 18-11-85. Later on 22-11-85 he filed the aforesaid application under Section 13 of the Act in the Court of D.J. Indore for dissolution of the marriage by a decree for divorce.
3. The petitioner first moved the District Judge Indore for transfer of the case to Ratlam and later got it dismissed as the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
4. Subsequently on 18-11-87 the petitioner moved the High Court by an application under Section 24 of the Code (vide M.C.C. No. 207/87). This Court by its order dated 1-12-87 dismissed this application.
5. The petitioner on 23-3-89 by the present petition has again moved this Court for transfer of the case.
6. The contention of the petitioner is that she resides at Ratlam and, in the circumstances, it is highly inconvenient for her to contest the case at Indore. It has also been alleged that she apprehends risk to her life and limb and that despite the direction by the High Court in its order dated 1-12-87, that the trial Court shall dispose of the case within three months, the matter is still pending and the non-applicant is responsible for the delay.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that even during the pendency of the application under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 24 of the Code which was dismissed by this Court on 3-10-85 (vide order of the date in M.C.C. No. 202/85). According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has an order in her favour granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and till today the non-applicant has deposited Rs. 15.500/- excluding the sum of Rs. 1500/- towards expenses of proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has from this Court obtained stay of proceedings on 23-3-89 and it is with a view to continue to claim maintenance that she has been resorting to delaying tactics. It is urged that the application does not deserve to be allowed also on the ' ground that similar application has already been dismissed by the very Court. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ramparibai's case I (1985) DMC 377, Krishan Sohane's case I (1985) DMC 392 and others.
8. The point for consideration is whether the application deserves to be allowed.
9. In the decision in Kiran Shohane's case (supra) it has been pointed out that a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Act may be filed in the Court of original civil jurisdiction where the marriage was solemnized, where the respondent resides at the time of presentation of the divorce petition or where the parties to the marriage last resided together and that the choice of forum should not ordinarily be interfered except for valid reasons. In the decision in Ramparibai's case (supra) the District Judge had reported that there was no such danger as alleged and the previous application for transfer on similar grounds had been dismissed. It was held that the application under consideration also deserved to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision in Smt. Mithelesh Sharma's case (1984 CCLJ N. 131) has urged that where there is material to hold that the non-applicant has resorted to threats ground for transfer is clearly made out. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Munnibai's case 1981 (I) MPWN 68.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that the petitioner's earlier application on similar grounds stand dismissed and there is no reliable material to hold that at any later date, the petitioner had ever been threatened. He urges that in Munnibai's case (supra) the husband could file the petition at the place where he and the wife resided but had filed it at another place and it was contended that this was with a view to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel has invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit dated 21-8-89 filed by the non-applicant wherein it has been stated that he has not indulged in any incident intended to threaten the petitioner and that there is also an undertaking that no untoward incident would be resorted to and all attempts shall be made at early disposal of the case.
12. On a careful consideration of the material on record, I find that the non-applicant cannot be held responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case and in the context of the fact that similar earlier petition has been dismissed. I am of the view that this petition must meet the same fate.
13. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.