wife getting 10K/mon & asking exorbitant settlement gets matri case transferred Ahmedabad 2 Vadodara! long live women’s empowerment

* Husband has already paid 2.31 lakhs
* He is paying Rs 10 K per month
* Husband is arrears another 89 thousands according to wife’s counsel
* No proof as to husband’s cruelty …. NO evidence ., inquiry , nothing seems to be have happened
* Still matri case transferred Ahmedabad 2 Vadodara !

****************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 2587 of 2013

****************************************************************
DIPIKA W.O. BHAVESH PARMAR D.O. SUNILBHAI PANCHABHAI….Applicant(s)
Versus
BHAVESH MAFATBHAI PARMAR….Opponent(s)
****************************************************************
Appearance:
MR RITESH B DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
****************************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

Date : 18/09/2014

ORAL ORDER

The present application is filed praying that, "7(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and HMP No.453 of 2013 filed before Family Court, Ahmedabad may be transfer to Family Court at Vadodara where maintenance application being Cr Mis Application No.998/ 2011 is pending."

2. The Court issued notice as back as on 19.11.2013 returnable on 11.12.2013. Since then the matter is getting adjourned on one or the other ground. One of the grounds is that the parties are trying to arrive at an amicable settlement in the matter. The matter appeared before this Court on 14.08.2014 and the Court passed the following order. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

"It is unfortunate that a matter seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 453 of 2013 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad to Family Court at Vadodara is still pending before this Court Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for learned advocate Mr. Ritesh B. Dave for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to an order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, and that amount is yet not paid. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel submitted that as per the instructions available with him only a sum of Rs.15,000/- is paid so far. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari for the respondent submitted that upto January 2014 an amount of Rs.90,000/- is paid. Assuming for the sake of argument that Rs.90,000/- is paid upto January 2014, from January 2014 to August 2014 whether the amount is paid or not is to be ascertained. Learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari for the respondent to take instructions with all the receipts of the amount deposited before the Court. The matter is adjourned to 19th August 2014."

On 19.08.2014 the Court passed the following order:

"Learned advocate Mr.Ansari makes available for perusal the receipts showing the deposits made by the respondent. Learned advocate to supply copy of these receipts to learned advocate Mr.Ritesh Dave to enable him to take instructions in this regard. Matter is adjourned to 27.8.2014."

On 27.08.2014, learned advocate Mr.Aftabhusen Ansari had filed leave note. The matter was adjourned to 28.08.2014. On 28.08.2014, the Court passed the following order:

"Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for Mr. Ritesh B. Dave for the applicant states that the two brothers of the applicant, one from Dubai and the other from Chennai, are in town as the applicant’s father is hospitalized. In the presence of her brothers, the applicant is hopeful that pursuing the opponent- husband the matter may reach to an amicable settlement. To enable the parties to explore the possibility, the matter is kept on 4th September 2014. If there is any development, learned advocate for the applicant can ask for further time."

On 04.09.2014 the Court passed the following order:

"Learned advocate Mr.Manish Patel for Mr.Ritesh B. Dave for the applicant-wife, on instructions from the applicant, states that the applicant-wife is in receipt of a sum of Rs.2.31 lacs till date. But still there is arrear of Rs.89,000/-.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Aftabhusen Ansari for the opponent-husband is in receipt of suggestive amount for permanent alimony. Mr.Ansari wants some time to take instructions from the opponent-husband. At this request the matter is kept on 12.09.2014."

On 12.09.2014 the matter was adjourned for today.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Ansari submitted that though the marriage period is of 3 years, the amount asked for by the applicant is exorbitant, therefore, it is not possible to have amicable settlement in the matter. The matter requires consideration. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Aftabhusen Ansari waives service of rule. At the request of learned advocate Mr.Manish Patel for Mr.Ritesh B. Dave for the applicant-wife the matter is taken up for final hearing. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Manish Patel for Mr.Ritesh B.

Dave for the applicant-wife. Learned advocate Mr.Ansari vehemently opposed the application saying that city of Vadodara is 100 KMs away from Vadodara and travelling time is 2 hours. Expenses the respondent is ready to bear. Therefore, the present application should not be allowed and the proceedings filed at Ahmedabad should not be transferred to Vadodara. In support of his submission the learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Neelam Bhatia Vs. Satbir Singh Bhatia, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 436. On perusal it is found that the facts of the aforesaid case are different than the facts on hand. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case.

5. The learned advocate for the respondent next relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Kamudi Aurora Vs. Surinder Pal Singh Aurora, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 634. The learned advocate could not convince this Court that the facts before the Hon’ble the Apex Court are similar to the facts which are before this Court. In view of that these two decisions do not help the learned advocate for the respondent to support his submission.

This Court is at pains to record the approach of the respondent of mentioning the length of marriage period of 3 years, viz-a-viz the amount asked for by the applicant. This is something which is unacceptable. Besides that the distance of 100 KMs between Ahmedabad and Vadodara is considerable when a lady has to travel.

Besides that the applicant-wife has filed Criminal Misc. Application No.998 of 2011 before Family Court, Vadodara, therefore, presumption is that the present proceedings of HMP No.453 of 2013 filed by the applicant-husband before Family Court, Ahmedabad is only counterblast to see that he is not required to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife. In view of that the present Misc. Civil Application is allowed. HMP No.453 of 2013 pending before the Family Court, Ahmedabad is transferred to Family Court, Vadodara. Rule is made absolute.

(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF – Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s