- (1.) A transfer application has been filed by the wife on the ground that she is an illiterate woman residing in village Udala, Tehsil in District Dausa. According to her, she has filed two cases against the non-applicant/husband, namely under Sections 498A, 406 IPC read with Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Dausa and another case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Dausa. According to her, meanwhile the non-applicant/husband has filed a case for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Furthermore, according to her, since she is an illiterate woman living below the poverty line, it is difficult for her to travel from Dausa to Jaipur at a distance of 65 Kms. Moreover, since the non-applicant/husband is already attending the Courts at Dausa, whereas it is inconvenient for her to travel to Jaipur. Hence, her prayer is that the case for divorce which is pending before the Family Court No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur be transferred before the District Judge, Dausa. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay & Anr. [(2001) 10 SCC 41], Sunita V/s. Om Prakash [2004 WLC (Raj.) 257 (UC)], and Deepti Patidar Bohara V/s. Yogesh Kumar Patidar (S.B. Civil Transfer Application No.44/2009 ? decided on 22.11.2010).
(2.) ALTHOUGH notices have been issued, and the same have been served upon the respondent, but no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Transferring of a case is not for mere asking. Recently, relying on the case of Kulwinder Kaur V/s. Kandi Friends Education Trust [(2008) (3) SCC 659] in the case of DAV Boys Senior Secondary School & others V/s. DAV College Managing Committee [(2010) 8 SCC 401], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; 'interest of justice' demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a 'fair trial' in the court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the court to make such order." A bare perusal of the application clearly reveals that the entire application is based on the ground of inconvenience of the applicant. However, the applicant is unjustified that it will be inconvenient for her to travel from Dausa to Jaipur. For Dausa is only 65 Kms. away from Jaipur. Moreover, both the cities are well connected by road as well as by train. Therefore, inconvenience is not a valid ground for seeking transfer. As far as the case law cited are concerned, it is noticed that in the case of Sumita Singh (supra), the case had to be transferred from Ara in Bihar to Delhi. In the case of Sunita (supra) the case had to be transferred from Bundi to Jaipur. In the case of Deepti Patidar (supra), the distance between Jhalawar to Jaipur was almost 350 Kms. However, in the present case, the applicant is required to just cover 65 Kms. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable.
(3.) MOREOVER, under Section 24 of the Act, the applicant is entitled to claim for maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. Obviously an application can be filed which takes care of any financial burden that she may incur in travelling from Dausa to Jaipur. Therefore, this application is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.;