IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. ___ OF 2016 [PETITION UNDER SECTION 25 OF CPC, 1908 FOR TRANSFER OF THE FAMILY SUIT NO. 107/2016 PENDING BEFORE LD. SHRI
V.S.
DAVE,
PRINCIPAL
JUDGE,
FAMILY
COURT,
VADODARA, GUJARAT TO THE FAMILY COURT IN UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN]
IN THE MATTER OF:Rajshree Chouhan
…Petitioner Versus
Krishanraj Singh Jadeja
….Respondent
With I.A. No______of 2016: An application for ad-interim Ex-parte Stay With I.A. No.___of 2016 An application for exemption from filing O/T
PAPER = BOOK [FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: :
VISHWA PAL SINGH
INDEX Sr.No.
Particular
Pages
1.
Listing Performa
A
2.
Synopsis and list of dates
B
3.
Transfer Petition with affidavit
1-
4.
Annexure P-1 A true copy of divorce petition family suit no. 107 of 2016 filed before Ld. Shri
V.S.
Dave,
Principal
Judge,
Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat
5.
Annexure P-2 A true copy of maintenance petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. case no. of pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur(Rajasthan)
6.
IA No._______of 2015 An application for ad interim ex-parte stay
7.
IA No._______of 2016 An application for exemption from filing official translation
PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING SECTIONIVB The case pertains to: Central Act: (Title)
CPC
Section:
25
Central Rule: (Title):
NA
Rule No(s):
NA
State Act: (Title):
NA
Section:
NA
State Rule: (Title):
NA
Rule No(s):
NA
Impugned
Interim NA
Order:(Date) Impugned
Final NA
Order/Decree: (Date) High Court: (Name):
NA
Names of Judges:
NA
Tribunal/Authority:
NA
1.
Nature of Matter:
2.
(a) Petitioner/appellant No.: Rajshree Chouhan
3.
4.
Civil
Criminal
(b) e-mail ID:
[email protected]
© Mobile Phone Number:
NA
(a) Respondent no.1:
Krishanraj Singh Jadeja
(b) e-mail ID:
NA
© Mobile Phone Number:
NA
(a)
Main
classification:
Category 18
(b) Sub Classification: 5.
Not to be listed before:
18 T.P. under Section 25 of CPC NA
6.
Similar/Pending matter:
NA
7.
Criminal Matters: a)Whether
accused/convict
has surrendered:
NA
b) FIR No.
N.A.
©Police Station:
8.
9. 10.
11.
Yes
No
N.A.
(d)Sentence Awarded:
N.A.
(e)Sentence Undergone:
NA
Land Acquisition Matters: (a)Date of Section 4 NA Notification: Tax Matters: State the tax NA effect: Special Category (First Senior citizen>65 years NA NA petitioner/ appellant only) SC/ST Women/Child Yes Disabled NA Vehicle Number (in case of NA Motor
Accident
Claim
matters): 12.
Decided
cases
with NA
Citation: FILED BY
[VISHWAPAL SINGH] Advocate for the Petitioner Email:
[email protected] FILED ON :
29.6.2016
SYNOPSIS
By the way of present petition under section 25 of CPC, the petitioner/wife prays for transfer of divorce petition family suit no. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Rajshree Chouhan to the Family Court, Udaipur (Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur, Rajasthan That this Hon'ble Court may kindly consider that the petitioner has filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125
of
Cr.P.C.,
which
is
pending
before
the
Judicial
Magistrate, Udaipur(Rajasthan) and petitioner/wife is willing and ready to live with the respondent/husband, in their matrimonial home, as a united family but with dignity and respect. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that petitioner is an unemployed woman, deserted by her husband, completely
dependent upon her parents and so far no maintenance nor litigation
expenses
has
been
awarded
or
provided
by
respondent herein for the maintenance wife/petitioner. She is fighting for dignity & respect of being a woman which was vitiated by respondent and his family members. Petitioner wife being Hindu believe in united family and as a lady always who vows for fulfillment of dreams and objectives of her husband but can’t at any cost allow any persons to deprave and vitiated women rights. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that divorce petition was filed by husband against wife pending before before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat without any cogent reasons as petitioner herein is always ready and willing to join her matrimonial house and on the other hand unemployed wife has filed a petition for maintenance before Udaipur, Rajasthan and it is the husband who wants divorce to get remarried again and therefore wife being lady should not be burdened with such a tremendous physical, mental and financial pressure. That this Hon’ble Court ought to have followed its precedent while deciding transfer petition in matrimonial cases that-: In Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay And Anr AIR 2002 SC 396 that “it is the husband's suit against the wife. It is the wife's
convenience
that,
therefore,
must
be
looked
at,
The
circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute.”
The aforementioned precedent was followed by this Hon’ble Court in Vinisha Jitesh Tolani vs Jitesh Kishore Tolani (2010) 5 SCC 748 that when husband filed a suit against wife and seeks remedy from the court, the court must consider the circumstances of wife and should not put her into more financial burden.
That this Hon’ble Court in Anju Ohri vs Varinder ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556 held that divorce proceeding filed by husband at Chandigarh, wife residing in Delhi. This Hon’ble Court, for the better convenience of parties and in the interest of justice, allowed the transfer petition.
That
this
Hon’ble
Court
in
Lalita
A.
Rangavs
Ajay
ChamplalRanga (2000) 9 SCC 355 held that wife also having child and and place of residence (Jaipur) and place where divorce petition was filed (Bombay). Therefore the transfer petition is allowed.
That this Hon’ble Court in Veena Rani vs Vijay Kumar (2004) 13 SCC 503 held that transfer of matrimonial case from Lakshman Garh, dist. Alwar, Rajasthan to Karnal, Haryana sought by wife on the ground of long distance and that she has three minor children and lack of sufficient funds to attend proceeding at Lakshmangarh. This hon’ble Court held that it is just and appropriate to direct transfer as prayed for.
That this Hon’ble Court in Neelam Kumari vs Navinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 363 held that transfer of matrimonial case from Delhi to Kangra on the ground of financial incapability to bear cost of litigation of Delhi and of having a minor child whom she can’t be leave alone. Held, ground made and transfer petition allowed.
This Hon’ble Court in Mona Aresh Goyal vs Aresh Satya Goel (2000) 9 SCC 255 held that divorce petition filed by husband at Bombay, wife staying with her parents in delhi, expressing her physical as well as financial inability to contest the petition at Bombay. This Hon’ble Court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case, transfer petition moved by wife allowed and transferred the petition from Bombay to Delhi.
It is of utmost significance that this Hon'ble Court has held in the case of Ajay Lawania Vs. Shobhna Dubey 2010 (15) SCC 354, that it is well settled that if two petitions are filed under the Act, one under Section 9 and the other under Section 13, then, in order to avoid conflicting decisions, it is expedient that both the cases are heard by the same Court. Evidence in the two cases should be recorded one after the other, arguments
should
be
heard
separately
and
thereafter,
separate judgments should be delivered on one day.
LIST OF DATES
12.5.2013
The
marriage
b/w
petitioner
and
respondent was solemnized on 12.5.2013 at Village Bambora Tehsil Girva District Udaipur
according
to
Hindu
Rites
and
Rituals with the presence of her family and relatives after marriage both lived together to 6-7 days. 2013-2014
Thereafter that respondent behavior was cruel/misbehaved
with
Respondent/Krishanraj
having
Petitioner. illogical
relationship with other girls that’s why his behavior with Petitioner turned cruel. He speaks
in
front
of
Petitioner
with
his
girlfriend and continued to behave cruelly with
Petitioner.
Even
after
telling
respondent to not to talk to other girls, he continued his brutual behavior and started to beat Petitioner and in this respondents mother supported him. Then petitioner was subject to mental and physically cruelty and harassed by respondent demanding dowry 17.7.2014
When Petitioner went back to her in-laws house on 17.7.2014, she stayed there with respondent and his family for almost 21 days.
During
this
period,
respondent
continued their cruel and brutual behavior. They demanded dowry and continued to beat her. They tortured her mentally and physically and thereafter Petitioner come back to her maternal house. After that also Petitioner went again to her in-laws house and stayed there for 15 days. In that period behavior
was
inhuman
and
cruel
and
demand of dowry violence continued. With this
kind
of
inhuman
behavior
of
respondent and his family members and she got tensed and came back to her home in Udaipur. 28.5.2015
Petitioner went again to her in-laws home at Vadodara, Gujarat on 28.5.2015, she stayed there for almost a week. Then also behavior of respondent & his mother was cruel towards Petitioner, the demand of
dowry continued. 2.6.2015
During this period, respondent & his mother towards Petitioner started quarreling for flour on 2.6.2015 and then Petitioner’s inlaws started beating her and she was strangulated,
respondent
did
not
even
reacted and did not even stopped his parents.
On
Maternal
this
Uncle’s
Makarapura
Police
Petitioner
with
daughter
went
Station,
her to
Vadodara,
Gujarat and filed a complaint, thereafter went back to her mother-father’s house at Udaipur, Rajasthan. Then after respondent and his family never tried to convince her or asked her to come back. 17.2.2016
The respondent filed a divorce petition family suit no. 107 of 2016 before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Rajshree Chouhan for divorce under section 13(1)(1A) and (1B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
20.4.2016
The maintenance petition case no. 177 of 2016 section
filed
by
125
petitioner Cr.P.C.
herein
before
under Judicial
Magistrate, South-2, Udaipur, Rajasthan 29.6.2016
Hence the transfer petition
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. ___ OF 2016 [PETITION UNDER SECTION 25 OF CPC, 1908 FOR TRANSFER OF THE FAMILY SUIT NO. 107/2016 PENDING BEFORE LD. SHRI
V.S.
DAVE,
PRINCIPAL
JUDGE,
FAMILY
COURT,
VADODARA, GUJARAT TO THE FAMILY COURT IN UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN]
IN THE MATTER OF:Rajshree Chouhan Aged 27 years W/o Krishanraj Singh Jadeja D/o Sh. Vikram Singh Chouhan R/o presently at 37, Shree Ram Colony, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Permanent Add: Bumbora, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan …Petitioner Versus Krishanraj Singh Jadeja Aged 30 years, S/o Harvijay Singh Jadeja R/o Moti Nagar-2, Tersali, Ring Road, Vadodara, Gujarat ….Respondent
TO, The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India And His companion judges of the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi.
The humble petition of the petitioner above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:1.
By way of the present petition under Section 25 of the C.P.C.,1908, r/w order XLI of the S.C.R. 2013, the
petitioner/wife prays for transfer of divorce petition family suit no. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Rajshree
Chouhan
to
the
Family
Court,
Udaipur
(Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Court or any other Court.
3. That the facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under: i.
The marriage b/w petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.5.2013 at Village Bambora Tehsil Girva District Udaipur according to Hindu Rites and Rituals with the presence of her family and relatives after marriage both lived together to 6-7 days.
ii.
That after the solemnization of marriage respondent did not take sufficient care of petitioner and was petitioner was subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hand of respondent and his family members on the account of not giving sufficient dowry and full filing their illegal demands. They abused
and
misbehaved
petitioner
on
several
occasion and put petitioner in the state of depression.
iii.
Thereafter
that
respondent
cruel/misbehaved
behavior
with
was
Petitioner.
Respondent/Krishanraj having illogical relationship with
other
Petitioner
girls
that’s
why
turned
cruel.
He
his
behavior
speaks
in
with
front
of
Petitioner with his girlfriend and continued to behave cruelly with Petitioner. Even after telling respondent to not to talk to other girls, he continued his brutual behavior and started to beat Petitioner and in this respondents mother supported him. Then petitioner was subject to mental and physically cruelty and harassed by respondent demanding dowry
iv.
When Petitioner went back to her in-laws house on 17.7.2014, she stayed there with respondent and his
family for almost 21 days. During this period, respondent
continued
their
cruel
and
brutual
behavior. They demanded dowry and continued to beat her. They tortured her mentally and physically and thereafter Petitioner come back to her maternal house. After that also Petitioner went again to her inlaws house and stayed there for 15 days. In that period behavior was inhuman and cruel and demand of dowry violence continued. With this kind of inhuman behavior of respondent and his family members and she got tensed and came back to her home in Udaipur.
v.
Petitioner
went
again
to
her
in-laws
home
at
Vadodara, Gujarat on 28.5.2015, she stayed there for almost a week. Then also behavior of respondent & his mother was cruel towards Petitioner, the demand of dowry continued.
vi.
During this period, respondent & his mother towards Petitioner started quarreling for flour on 2.6.2015 and then Petitioner’s in-laws started beating her and she was strangulated, respondent did not even reacted and did not even stopped his parents. On this Petitioner with her Maternal Uncle’s daughter went to
Makarapura Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat and filed a complaint, thereafter went back to her mother-father’s house at Udaipur, Rajasthan. Then after respondent and his family never tried to convince her or asked her to come back.
vii.
That the divorce petition was filed by respondent before Family Court, Vadodara in the year 2016 on the ground that petitioner left the matrimonial house without any reasons.
viii.
That aforementioned divorce petition was filed to harass petitioner herein.
ix.
That on 17.2.2016 the respondent filed a divorce
petition family suit no. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Rajshree Chouhan under section 13(1)(1A) and (1B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A true translated copy of petition is annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 (page ___ to ____)
x.
That on 20.4.2016 the maintenance petition filed by petitioner herein under section 125 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, South-2, Court no. 2, Udaipur, Rajasthan. A true copy of petition is annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 (page no _16__ to __18__)
4. That the instant Transfer Petition is sought for on the following grounds:-
GROUNDS
A.
Because the Petitioner is not in a position to travel 10 hours journey (appr. 600 k.ms.) from her residence at Udaipur, Rajasthan to Vadodara, Gujarat alone.
B.
Because
the
Petitioner,
unemployed,
being
lady,
dependents on her parents, is not in financial position to afford travel to Vadodara, Gujarat and stay at Vadodara, Gujarat;
C.
BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court ought to have transferred the divorce petition filed by respondent/husband, following its own precedent that when the divorce petition is filed by husband against wife then convenience of wife is to be considered and transfer petition should be allowed in favour of the wife.
In Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay AndAnr AIR 2002 SC 396 that “i t
is the husband's suit against the wife. It
is the wife's convenience that, therefore, must be looked at, The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute.”
The
aforementioned
Hon’ble
Court
in
precedent
was
followed
by
this
Vinisha Jitesh Tolani vs Jitesh
Kishore Tolani (2010) 5 SCC 748 that when husband
filed a suit against wife and seeks remedy from the court, the court must consider the circumstances of wife and should not put her into more financial burden.
That this Hon’ble Court in Anju Ohri vs Varinder ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556 hold that divorce proceeding filed by
husband at chandigarh, wife residing in Delhi. This Hon’ble Court hold that for the better convenience of parties and in the interest of justice allow the transfer petition.
That this Hon’ble Court in Lalita A. Rangavs Ajay Champlal Ranga (2000) 9 SCC 355 held that wife also
having child and and place of residence (Jaipur) and place where divorce petition was filed (Bombay). Therefore the transfer
petition
is
allowed.
That this Hon’ble Court in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay and Anr (2001) 10 SCC 41 again held that
consideration of convenience of wife, where present divorce petition filed by Husband in Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar where wife resides in Delhi. Wife residing in Delhi express her inability to contest the said case in Ara. This Hon’ble Court held that husband suit against wife and therefore convenience of wife must be looked at.
That this Hon’ble Court in Veena Rani vs Vijay Kumar (2004) 13 SCC 503 held that transfer of matrimonial
case
from
LakshmanGarh,
dist.
Alwar,
Rajasthan
to
Karnal, Haryana sought by wife on the ground of long distance and that she has three minor children and lack of sufficient funds to attend proceeding at Lakshmangarh. This hon’ble Court held that it is just and appropriate to direct transfer as prayed for.
That in Hon’ble Court in Neelam Kumari vs Navinder Singh
(2005)
12
SCC
363
held
that
transfer
of
matrimonial case from Delhi to Kangra on the ground of financial incapability to bear cost of litigation of Delhi and of having a minor child whom she can’t be leave alone. Held, ground made and transfer petition allowed.
This Hon’ble Court in Mona Aresh Goyal vs Aresh SatyaGoel (2000) 9 SCC 255 held that divorce petition
filed by husband at Bombay, wife staying with her parents in delhi, expressing her physical as well as financial inability to contest the petition a t Bombay. This Hon’ble Court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case,
transfer
petition
moved
by
wife
allowed
and
transferring the petition from Bombay to Delhi. D.
Because respondent/husband is a posted as mechanical engineer and having monthly income of Rs 40,000/-.
E.
BECAUSE
petition
under
section
125
Cr.P.C.
for
maintenance filed by petitioner herein is pending for adjudication before Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, South-2, in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
F.
BECAUSE this Hon'ble Court may kindly consider that the petitioner is willing and ready to live with the respondent in their matrimonial home, as a united family and continue to fulfill all the matrimonial relations but with dignity and respect.
G.
BECAUSE the divorce petition filed by respondent herein is misconceived has malafide intention to remarry with his girlfriend and only with the intention to harass petitioner has filed divorce petition.
H.
BECAUSE petitioner herein is unemployed and is currently living with her parents in Udaipur, wholly dependent on her parents and has no source of income for her livelihood and till now no maintenance/any expenses has been paid by respondent/husband for petitioner.
I.
BECAUSE Vadodara is approximately 600 km away from Udaipur which take 10 hrs of travelling in one way.
J.
BECAUSE the Udaipur court is inconvenient for both the parties because the petitioner herein is living in Udaipur and the respondent is also have place to stay in Udaipur.
K.
Because Udaipur Court is also convenient for respondent because his maternal grandfather named Indra Singh Sarangdeot and Maternal Uncle named Chandraveer Singh Sarangdeot both lives in Udaipur, Rajasthan
L.
BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that petitioner is an unemployed woman, deserted by her husband, completely dependent upon her parents and so far no maintenance nor litigation expenses has been
awarded
or
provided
by
respondent
herein
for
the
maintenance wife/petitioner. She is under great physical and mental burden and it will be in the interest of both the parties that the divorce case pending before Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat be transferred to Family Court in Udaipur, Rajasthan M.
BECAUSE the respondent belongs from a very rich family and it is convenient for him to travel from Vadodara to Udaipur.
N.
That this Hon’ble Court should consider that divorce petition was filed by husband against wife and on other hand wife is ready and willing to join matrimonial duties and therefore it was husband who wants divorce to remarried again and therefore wife being lady should not be burdened with such a high physical, mental and financial pressure.
PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:i) Pass an order transferring divorce petition family
suit no. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Rajshree Chouhan to the Family Court, Udaipur (Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur, Rajasthan, otherwise great
prejudice and hardship will be caused to the petitioner. ii) Pass any other further order as deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case. AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER BEING DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY. DRAWN BY ARUN BHARADWAJ RONAK KARANPURIA ASHISH PANDEY ADVOCATE DRAWN ON: 18.6.2015 FILED ON: 29.6.2015
FILED BY
VISHWA PAL SINGH Advocate for the Petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.___________OF 2016 IN TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO______OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF:RAJSHREE CHOUHAN VERSUS KRISHANRAJ SINGH JADEJA
…PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH 1. By the way of present petition under section 25 of C.P.C. 1908, the petitioner prays for transfer of Family Suit No. 107/2016 pending before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat to any other competent court in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
2.
That the facts stated in accompanying transfer petition may be kindly read as part of this petition also. The petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent/husband after deserting the petitioner filed a petition for divorce which is pending adjudication before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat.
3.
That this Hon’ble Court should consider that petitioner being a lady, unemployed, deserted by her husband, completely dependent upon its parents and not a single penny has been paid by respondent herein for the petitioner and has to appear and meet lawyers in Vadodara, Gujarat as well as to pursue her own studies
and such a physical, mental as well financial burden is enormous of the petition therefore should have consider and allow the transfer petition to transfer the divorce petition pending before Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat to Family Court in Udaipur, Rajasthan in the interest of justice.
4.
That the petition u/s 13(1)(1a)(1b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce was filed by respondent herein and petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was filed by petitioner herein is pending before Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5.
That this Hon’ble Court should consider that divorce petition was filed by husband against wife and on other hand wife is always ready and willing to join her matrimonial house but with dignity and respects and therefore it was husband who wants divorce to get remarried again and therefore wife being lady should not be burdened with such a tremendous physical, mental and financial pressure.
PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass:-
a) An
ad-interim
ex-parte
stay
order
staying
the
proceeding of Family Suit No. 107/2016 pending before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat b) such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER SHALL IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY
Filed on
29.6.2016
Filed by
VISHWA PAL SINGH New Delhi
Advocate for petitioner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO.___________OF 2016 IN TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO______OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF:RAJSHREE CHOUHAN
…PETITIONER VERSUS
KRISHANRAJ SINGH JADEJA
…RESPONDENT
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM OFFICIAL TRANSLATION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH 1. By the way of present petition under section 25 of C.P.C. 1908, the petitioner prays for transfer of Family Suit No. 107/2016 pending before Ld. Shri V.S. Dave, Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, Gujarat to any other competent court in Udaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Annexure P1 and and P2 attached with instant transfer petition has been translated by the Petitioner and the same is the true translation of its respective originals in Hindi. As the official translation is likely to take a long time the petitioner respectfully prays that he may kindly be exempted in the interests of justice from filing official translation of the aforesaid documents.
3. That the present application is being made bona fide in the interest of justice where the balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of the petitioner herein and grave and irreparable loss would occasion to the petitioner in
case the prayers made below are not allowed by this Hon’ble Court. PRAYER In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a)
Exempt the petitioner herein from filing the official translation of Annexure P1 and P2 in the above mentioned matter.
b)
pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
AND
FOR
THIS
ACT
OF
KINDNESS,
YOUR
HUMBLE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY
ARUN BHARDWAJ RONAK KARANPURIA Drawn on: 28.6.2016
Filed on: 29.6.2016
FILED BY
Vishwa Pal Singh [ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER]
