Full Judgment
R.S. Kejriwal, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this transfer application under Section 24, read with Section 151 C.P.C. for transferring the Case No. 70/91, pending in the Family Court of Ajmer, to the Family Court Udaipur.
2. In para No. 4 of the application, the petitioner mentioned that on 29.8.1991, she appeared in the Court at Ajmer, for filing her reply. In the evening, when she was going with her brother to the Railway Station, the plaintiff in the company of two other persons met them. Her husband stood at a distance. One of his friend told her that she was in the company of a Paramour (yar). She protested and told that he was her brother and shouted loudly towards her husband. Her husband came near and told her not to come next time otherwise she would be defaced and her brother would be placed behind bars.
3. In Para 6 of the petition, it has been mentioned that on 25.11.1991 the plaintiff and his friend met her in the evening near the Station and threatened her with dire consequences in case she did not agreed to get the case decided in his favour by a consent order.
4. In Para No. 7, it has been mentioned that there is imminent danger of her being maltreated and defaced at Ajmer, at the beheast of the plaintiff.
5. In Para No. 8, it has been mentioned that it is not possible for her to attend all the dates at Ajmer because she can not come alone and she also does not get leave from her office every time.
6. It was prayed that divorce petition No. 70/91, be transferred from the Family Court, Ajmer, to the Family Court, Udaipur. The application is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner herself.
7. The respondent also submitted a written reply and denied the allegations made in the application.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. Mr. Srimal, Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the circumstances mentioned above it is not possible for the petitioner to contest the case at Ajmer. He further argued that there is imminent danger to the life of the petitioner. He also argued that on the ground of convenience also the case be transferred from Ajmer to Udaipur.
10. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on AIR 1990 Karnataka 146 (C.S. Shyamala v. C.S. Srikantaiah). In that case the facts were that the petitioner filed an application for transfer. She was unemployed and was living at the mercy of her brother. The Court held that viewed from human angle suit had to be transferred as desired by petitioner in order to overcome avoidable expenditure.
11. The facts of this case are not applicable to the present case.
12. In A.I.R. 1990 Madras 330 (K.R. Srinathi V. H. Ramakrishna), the Madras High Court held that divorce-petition can be, transferred on the ground of convenience.
13. The petition filed by the petitioner is not based on the ground of convenience but on the specific grounds that the respondent gave threatening to the petitioner of dire consequences.
14. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon. Supreme Court, reported in 1992 I SVLR (C) 349. In that case, husband obtained divorce decree against the wife at Bombay. Wife was living at Ghaziabad. Bombay High Court awarded meagre expenses, on account of that wife was not in a position to reach Bombay to contest the application. Under these circumstances, the Hon. Supreme Court, set-aside the divorce-decree on the ground that interim maintenance order was a biased one and it led to exparte decree. The Court also transferred the proceedings to Ghaziabad Court.
15. This case is also based on different facts and it is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case the plaintiff's statement is over.
16. On the other hand, Mr. J.C. Jain, Counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner neither lodged any F.I.R. before the Police nor before the Family Court nor asked a single question in cross-examination regarding the threatening given by the respondent. He further argued that the petitioner in the garb of false plea, wants to get the case transferred from Ajmer to Udaipur. He also argued that if Udaipur Court is convenient to the petitioner, the same is inconvenient to the non-petitioner. He also argued that there are no such circumstances, by which jurisdiction of the Family Court Ajmer should be avoided.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, there is no case of transfer on the grounds mentioned in the transfer application. But the petitioner has to attend the Ajmer Court on every date. She is in service. She has to take leave. Not only this she has to accompany his brother and thereby has to spend lot of money. Under these circumstances, I direct the non-petitioner to pay to the petitioner Rs. 300/- on each date of hearing when she comes to attend the Court. The respondent will pay the arrears to the petitioner also at the aforesaid rate. It there is any direction by the Trial Court in this respect the same is modified to this extent. If the respondent has paid any amount to the petitioner for expenses of coming and going and of stay at Ajmer, they shall be deducted from the arrears. The respondent will pay arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The respondent is further directed to give an undertaking before the Family Court that he will not harass in any way to the petitioner when she comes to Ajmer to attend the Family Court. The Judge, Family Court is also directed to see that the petitioner is not in any way harassed by the respondent and his friends or colleagues.
With these observations, the transfer application is disposed of.