Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 143296 (ALL)

Archana Sharma v. Nitesh Kumar

TACL/129/2024 · 2025-04-03

Jaspreet Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18675 Court No. - 8 Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 129 of 2024 Applicant :- Archana Sharma Opposite Party :- Nitesh Kumar Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Dwivedi,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Mukul Sudhir Pandey,Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Deep Singh,Gaurav Balmiki Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None appears for the respondent to ague the petition despite names of Shri Akash Deep Singh and Shri Gaurav Balmiki have been printed in the additional cause list. The record, however, indicates that coordinate bench of this Court had passed stop order that in case objection is not filed on behalf of the respondent, the matter shall be heard in his absence. 3. Despite the aforesaid order, neither the objection was filed nor counsel for the respondent has put in appearance to argue the case. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant. 5. The instant application has been preferred under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeing transfer of Regular Suit No.2263 of 2023 (Nitesh Kumar Vs. Archana Yadav), pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to an appropriate Court at Mau. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant and the respondent were married on 11.06.2019, however, on account of matrimonial dispute the applicant was thrown out of her matrimonial home and now she is residing at Mau along with her aged parents. It is further submitted that the applicant has instituted a petition under Section 125 CrPC before the appropriate Court in Mau wherein the respondent though has put in appearance but till date no maintenance has been awarded. It is urged that the applicant has also moved and filed a criminal case wherein the respondent has been summoned and in retaliation the respondent has instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow registered as Regular Suit No. 2263 of 2023. It is further urged that the applicant is unable to contest the proceedings at Lucknow as distance between the two towns is more than 300 kilometers and she is not sufficiently supported either in terms of finance or in terms of robust family support system coupled with the fact that the applicant has a minor child of four years. In the aforesaid circumstances, a prayer for transfer from district Lucknow to district Mau has been made. 7. Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the material available on record, submission of counsel for the applicant appears to be having some force. 8. Apex Court in the cases of Leena Mukherjee Vs. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee, reported in 2002 (10) SCC 480, Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka reported in 2004 (13) SCC 686, Neelm Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar reported in 2000 (1) SCC 589 and N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 has held that in matrimonial litigation, a transfer petition, at the behest of the wife must be considered liberally and also noticing her preference be given precedence. 9. This court is of the opinion that ends of justice can be met by transferring Regular Suit No.2263 of 2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Nitesh Kumar Vs. Archana Yadav), pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow shall forthwith transmit the record to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau who shall on receipt of the record and the copy of the order passed by the court and after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, shall make endeavour to decide the said suit preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the record. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the application is allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 MVS/- Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench