SBCTRANSFER PETITION NO.58/2008 - SMT. EKTA SOLANKI V/S JOHNY SOLANKI :.JUDGMENT DTD.20.10.2009
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
S.B. CIVIL MISC. TRANSFER APPLICATION NO.58/2008
Smt. Ekta Solanki.
Versus
Johny Solanki.
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.M.K.Trivedi, for the petitioner.
Ms.Pramila Acharya, for the respondent.
Smt. Ekta Solanki }
Mr.Johny Solanki } present in person.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20th October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1. The learned counsels have tried to hold reconciliation with the
parties, but they informed the Court that it does not seem possible.
The learned counsel for the petitioner – wife however submits that the
petitioner – wife is ready to go to matrimonial home. However, the
respondent – husband says that despite all efforts made in past, the
compromise talks have failed and the Family Court, Udaipur has also
tried reconciliation between the parties, but it does not seem possible
as the petitioner = wife has left the matrimonial home without even
properly informing the respondent – husband. Accordingly, this Court
SBCTRANSFER PETITION NO.58/2008 – SMT. EKTA SOLANKI V/S JOHNY SOLANKI :.JUDGMENT DTD.20.10.2009
2/3
noted that compromise between the parties does not seem possible at
this stage, therefore, arguments on merits of the transfer application
were heard.
2. The petitioner – wife has sought transfer of proceedings of
Case No.119/2008 – Johny Solanki V/s Smt. Ekta Solanki filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Family Court, Udaipur. The
petitioner wife has sought transfer of these proceedings to Jodhpur as
she is living with her son of 3 years, namely, Tushar with her father
at Jodhpur and she has submitted that since she is pursuing her B.Ed.
Course and is living at Jodhpur, according to the convenience in the
matter for the petitioner – wife, the case deserves to be transferred
from Udaipur to Jodhpur.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent – husband also submits
that behaviour of the petitioner – wife is not good enough and she has
left the matrimonial home on her own choice and has even taken
away minor son and despite efforts made by respondent – husband,
she has not returned to matrimonial home though she states before the
Court like this, but she is really not willing to go to matrimonial home
and the transfer application has been filed merely to cause harassment
to the respondent – husband who is in job at Udaipur and being
qualified person (MCA), it would be difficult for him to attend the
proceedings at Jodhpur if the case is transferred to Jodhpur. He has
SBCTRANSFER PETITION NO.58/2008 – SMT. EKTA SOLANKI V/S JOHNY SOLANKI :.JUDGMENT DTD.20.10.2009
3/3
also stated that the respondent – husband being the only son left to
look after his parents has to remain at Udaipur constantly and
unfortunately his brother has recently expired as he committed suicide
in Udaipur. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of transfer application.
5. Having heard the learned counsels and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to transfer the
proceedings from Udaipur to Jodhpur at the instance of the petitioner.
It seems that the petitioner has not made bonafide efforts for
compromise in the matter and is not really willing to go back to her
matrimonial home with her son and live in her matrimonial home and
serve her parents-in-law. Be that as it may, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case in the matrimonial dispute in hands,
it cannot be said that mere convenience of the petitioner – wife is a
good ground to transfer the proceedings from Udaipur to Jodhpur.
May be, if the proceedings are conducted at Udaipur and the
petitioner – wife has to attend the proceedings at Udaipur, the
chances of reconciliation between the parties may reopen some day.
Accordingly at this stage, the Court is not inclined to transfer the
proceedings from Udaipur to Jodhpur at the instance of the petitioner
– wife. The transfer application is accordingly rejected.
(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J.
Item No.42.
Ss/-