- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties. By filing the instant application, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Title Suit NO. 29/2009 filed by the opposite party, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Ranchi to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum (East) at Jamshedpur.
(2.) THE opposite party, who is the husband of the petitioner, filed the above Matrimonial Title Suit for a Decree for Divorce against the petitioner on different grounds. On the other hand, the petitioner alleges that her husband has filed the Matrimonial Divorce Suit only in order to save his skin from the criminal case filed by her under Section 498A, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He (husband) being an employee of News Paper "Prabhat Khabar", taking the undue advantage of his position, he is extending threats to her. It is further stated that her father is already dead and her marriage was solemnised by her brother and she is living at Ghatshila and, therefore, it is very difficult for her to cover such a long distance and to attend the Court Matrimonial Case at Ranchi since there is no one in her family who can accompany her to Ranchi from Ghatshila. She also apprehends danger of her life at the hands of her husband if she goes to contest the case at Ranchi. Accordingly, prayer has been made by the petitioner to transfer the Matrimonial Case filed by her husband ton the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party husband, controverting the claim of the petitioner for transfer of the case. By citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the C.P.C. has to be exercised with due care, caution and satisfaction. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the power of transfer can be exercised after considering the balance of convenience or inconvenience of the parties, place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit, issues raised by the parties and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending.
(3.) HE further submitted that the petition filed by petitioner under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable Since Section 24 of the C.P.C. is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and as a matter of fact, if at all Section 22 of C.P.C. may applicable and accordingly, he submitted that this petition for transfer is liable to be rejected. Lastly he submitted that since the case is fixed for evidence for framing of issues and as such, it is not the proper stage to transfer the case. The second submission of the opposite party regarding applicability of Section 22 or 24 of C.P.C., it is relevant to note both the provisions of C.P.C., which are quoted hereunder: - Section 22: - Power to transfer suits which may be instituted in more than one Court: -;