IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3374 of 2010
Kumari Payal @ Payal Kumari
Versus
Mukund Bihari
----------------------------------
3 16.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
opposite party.
This is an application for transfer of the
Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 105 of 2009 pending before
the Principal Judge, Family Court at Samatipur to the
Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
both the parties are residing at Muzaffarpur, and as such,
it would be convenient for both parties to participate in the
above proceeding at Muzaffarpur. Besides the above, it is
submitted that the petitioner has filed two cases against
the opposite party at Muzaffarpur ; one being Kazi
Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2009 for the offence
under section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal
Code and the other being Maintenance Case No. 110 of
2009. It is further submitted that in both the cases the
opposite party has appeared and participating in the
proceeding.
As regards the matrimonial case transfer of
which has been sought for in this application, it is
submitted that the opposite party has concluded the
examination of its witnesses and now it’s the turn for
examination of witnesses on behalf of the petitioner and as
such the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
petitioner for transfer of the aforesaid matrimonial case to
Muzaffarpur.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party, on the other hand, submits that the witnesses of the
opposite party have been examined and discharged after
their cross examination. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is being paid litigation cost of Rs. 500/- on each
date, and as such, the case may not be transferred as
prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the parties and
their pleadings, the admitted facts are that the petitioner
has filed criminal case and maintenance case against the
opposite party at Muzaffarpur, as noticed above, in which
the opposite party is appearing. The financial hardship is
also not denied, however, submission on behalf of the
opposite party is that the petitioner is being paid litigation
cost of Rs. 500/- on each date, and as such, financial
hardship should not come into the way. In the matrimonial
case the opposite party has examined its witnesses and
now it is the turn for examination of the witnesses on
behalf of the petitioner.
Considering the convenience and inconvenience
of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it would be
convenient for both the parties to take part in the case at
Muzaffarpur where two other cases as aforesaid are
pending and being contested by the parties. Besides, the
opposite party has since already examined its witnesses,
they are only required to cross examine the witnesses of
the petitioner, if any, produced in the case.
In the above circumstances, in the opinion of the
Court it is expedient in the interest of justice that the
aforesaid Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 105 of 2009
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court at
Samastipur be transferred to the Family Court at
Muzaffarpur. I order accordingly. Let the records of the
aforesaid matrimonial case be sent to the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur immediately.
Both the parties may appear before the Principal
Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur on 16th November,
2011 when a fresh date of hearing be fixed for the
examination of witnesses on behalf of the petitioner.
The MJC application accordingly stands disposed
of.
Let the order be communicated to the District
Judge, Samastipur for the needful through FAX on the
cost being deposited by the petitioner.
Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)