Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1824/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR TRANSFER No. 1824 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
SHRUTIBEN
ASHWINBHAI GANDHI W/O VITRAG NILENDU BHANDARI - Applicant(s)
Versus
VITRAG
NILENDUBHAI BHANDARI - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
AD DESAI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DHAVAL VAKIL for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 09/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Heard learned
Advocate Mr.Dhaval Vakil appearing for the respondent in this
application.
2. An affidavit
in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent affirmed by Mr.Vitrag
Nilendrubhai Bhandari running into as many as 8 pages. Along with
the affidavit, there are annexures from R-1 to R-4 containing as many
as 14 pages.
3. When it is
put to learned Advocate for the respondent as to what the respondent
is doing in life, he submitted that he is doing business. When it is
further inquired as to what is the business, he submitted that I do
not know as to what is the actual business of the respondent as he is
doing 2 to 3 businesses, of which, which one is handled by the
respondent he does not know.
3.1 When it is
further inquired as to what Mr.Shrenikbhai brother of his wife
applicant is doing, he submitted that, I do now know.
4. Without
mentioning anything about aforesaid factual position, an affidavit is
filed wherein it is stated that, ‘he has danger to his life in
Navsari’. The learned Advocate for the applicant invited attention
of the Court to Annexure-R-2. It is a communication from the
respondent to the Mamlatdar, Navsari dated 30.01.2010. On the face
of it, this communication is made with a view to see that in case any
transfer application is filed in future, can be objected.
4.1 The
respondent coming from Ahmedabad with a ‘direct service’ of the
process issued by the Family Court handed over the same to the
learned Principal Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari, who is turn asked the
Bailiff of the Court to serve the said process to the wife
applicant herein at her residence. It is stated in the said letter
that, ‘after the process was served, Smt.Ritaben Ashvinbhai Gandhi
mother of the wife applicant and Shri Shrenikbhai Ashvinbhai
Gandhi brother of the wife applicant got excited and taking
the process of the Court served by the Court officer in their hand,
they threatened the respondent in a high tone’. It is further stated
that, my mother-in-law stated that, I will see to it that you and
your mother and all other family members are sent behind the bars or
else my name is not Ritaben . It is further stated that Shri
Shrenikbhai brother of my wife told me that, I will see how
you go out of Navsari alive . This is nothing but a got up story.
5. Taking into
consideration the averments made in the application, affidavit filed
by the respondent and taking into consideration the falsehood
contained in the affidavit, the application is allowed. HMP No.77 of
2010 pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 13(a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is transferred to the District Court,
Navsari. Rule is made absolute. No costs.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top