JUDGMENT
S.K. Phaujdar, J.
1. This is an application under Section 24, CPC at the instance of the wife-respondent in a Matrimonial Suit No. 143 of 1991 between Brijesh Mani Tripathi and Smt. Suman Lata, and the prayer made herein is that the above suit should be transferred from Gorakhpur to any other District.
2. The concerned suit was filed as far back as on 24.10.1991.Smt. Suman Lata, respondent in the suit, appeared on 17.4.1992, after publication of the notice in a Gazette although her father Ram Chandra Shukia appeared on 20.1.1992. It is denied that she had been living under the care of the father at the relevant time. She filed her written statement on 19.1.1993 and a date was fixed for reconciliation. The attempt of reconciliation failed on 10.2.1993 and issues were framed. The plaintiff’s witness No. 1 was examined on 29.4.1993 in part. On the next date, the matter was adjourned on the prayer of the respondent. It was once again adjourned on the next date, on the further next date, the matter was to be heard on 5.2.1993. On that date, the respondent Smt. Suman Lata made a prayer for allowing her to be represented through an Advocate. The application was allowed granting appearance through an Advocate not only for her but for the husband also and the matter was adjourned to 20.7.1993. Prior to that date, however, the present application was fled before the High Court and a stay order was recorded.
3. It is stated in the transfer application that on 5.7.1993 the wife, Suman Lata, had attended the Court at Gorakhpur and when they were returning to the bus stand, the husband plaintiff aided by some anti-social elements threatened them with dire consequences. It was further stated that a report was made to the police station and a copy of the report was sent to the District Magistrate, as also to the Senior Supdt. of Police by registered post. It was further stated that the applicant, Suman Lata had no source of earning and was totally dependent upon her father and there was none to support her. She pleaded that it was not possible for her to proceed to Gorakhpur to attend that suit. Not only in view of this financial stringency but also for the alleged incident of threat on 5.7.1993. She apprehended that the husband plaintiff would try to get the case lingering. Only on these two grounds, the transfer of the suit was prayed for from Gorakhpur to any other District.
4. It appears that when the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 9.6.1996, the learned Counsel for both the sides agreed that an attempt of reconciliation be made between the parties and, accordingly, they were directed to appear before the Lok Adalat that was to be held on 18.5.1996. It was, however, indicated that Suman Lata did not attend the Lok Adalat and it was pleaded that she was busy in an examination and could not attend the Lok Adalat as directed. The parties were directed on 9.5.1996 by the High Court to appear before the Lok Adalat on 18.5.1996. If there was any examination that would keep SumanLata engaged, it could have been indicated to the Court on 9.5.1996 itself. Such plea, however, was not raised and the plea was advanced only on 3.7.1996 when the matter came up for hearing.
5. On the question of financial stringency, it can only be stated that it was open for Suman Lata to make a proper prayer before the Family Court for payment to her by the husband, Brijesh Mani Tripathi, costs of litigation and interim alimony. The order sheet of the case does not disclose that any such application was filed. The monetary difficulties posed as ground for transfer may be overcome by a suitable application before the Court and by a direction from the Court for payment to Suman Lata. Such amount as the Court, after hearing the parties, may fix. That cannot be a ground for transfer.
6. So far as allegations of threat are concerned, it is gathered from the averments in the transfer application that threats were given on 5.7.1993 when Suman Lata and her father were returning from the Court. The fact of the threat was never brought to the knowledge of the Court concerned at any point of time. If it is taken that on the day the threat was given the victims were so scared that they did not dare to come back to the Court, there was no reason why the Court could not be told on the next date that such threats were advanced. There was no reason for Suman Lata not to inform the Trial Court of the situation. The nature of the allegation of threat, as indicated in the transfer application, is that the husband came with some anti-social elements and threatened the applicant to face with dire consequences. A copy of the complaint has been annexed with the transfer application. It states :
“Idhar Kayee Tareekhon Se Tareekh Parhne Ke Baad Brijesh Mani Va Unke Pita Ram Daras Tewari Va Unke Sathi, Apshabad Kahe, Apamaanit Karte Hain, Taaki Dar Ke Karan Ham Log Na Aven.”
for the occurrence of 5.7.1993, it was stated that:
“Hamein Aur Hamari Larhki Ko Gali Guptha Dene Lage Tatha Dhamki Dene Lage Ki Agar Agli Taareekh Ko Turn Log Aaye To Theek Nahin Hoga.”
Translate into English, the allegations are that for the last few days, after adjournment orders were passed, Brijesh Mani and his father Ram Daras Tewari and their associates used defamatory words so that we may not come due to fear and they abused me and my daughter and threatened that if we attended on the next day, the results would not be happy. If the use of bad words was being made for days together, it was more necessary for the applicant to bring this fact to the knowledge of the Court. The threat was allegedly given on 5.7.1993 also. The case was instituted in 1991. Suman Lata had to be brought by publication of the notice in the Gazette. She filed her written statement, attempts of reconciliation were made and issues were framed where after the evidence of PW1 was also taken. If at all the husband desired to keep the wife away from the proceedings by show of threat, it does not appeal to reason why such threats would be advanced a1′ a late stage only and not from the very beginning to have the matter heard ex-parte. I am not convinced about the allegations of threat and the transfer prayer may not be granted on this score as well.
7. The application for transfer stands rejected. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court at Gorakhpur within 15 days of this order and the Family Court will take up the matter as expeditiously as possible. If there be any application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court would dispose of the same before proceedings with the trial.