You are on page 1of 28

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: Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.: Rajshree Chouhan


(b) e-mail ID: aaghryab@gmail.com
Mobile Phone Number: NA
3. (a) Respondent no.1: Krishanraj Singh Jadeja
(b) e-mail ID: NA
Mobile Phone Number: NA
4. (a) Main Category 18
classification:
(b) Sub Classification: 18 T.P. under Section 25 of
CPC
5. Not to be listed before: NA
6. Similar/Pending matter: NA

7. Criminal Matters:
a)Whether accused/convict Yes No
has surrendered: NA
b) FIR No. N.A.
Police Station: N.A.
(d)Sentence Awarded: N.A.
(e)Sentence Undergone: NA

8. Land Acquisition Matters:


(a)Date of Section 4 NA
Notification:
9. Tax Matters: State the tax NA
effect:
10. Special Category (First Senior citizen>65 years NA
petitioner/ appellant only) SC/ST NA
Women/Child Yes
Disabled NA
11. 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: aaghryab@gmail.com
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 Honble 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 cant at any cost allow any persons to deprave

and vitiated women rights.

That this Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble

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 Honble 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 Honble Court, for the

better convenience of parties and in the interest of justice,

allowed the transfer petition.

That this Honble 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 Honble 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 honble Court held that it

is just and appropriate to direct transfer as prayed for.

That this Honble 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 cant be leave alone. Held, ground made and

transfer petition allowed.

This Honble 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 Honble 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 Petitioner.
Respondent/Krishanraj having illogical
relationship with other girls thats 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 Petitioners 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 Uncles daughter went to
Makarapura Police Station, Vadodara,
Gujarat and filed a complaint, thereafter
went back to her mother-fathers 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 filed by petitioner herein under

section 125 Cr.P.C. before 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 Honble 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 behavior was

cruel/misbehaved with Petitioner.

Respondent/Krishanraj having illogical relationship

with other girls thats 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

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 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.

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 Petitioners 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 Uncles daughter went to


Makarapura Police Station, Vadodara, Gujarat and

filed a complaint, thereafter went back to her

mother-fathers 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, 1st 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 Honble 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 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


Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble
Court hold that for the better convenience of parties and in
the interest of justice allow the transfer petition.

That this Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble
Court held that husband suit against wife and therefore
convenience of wife must be looked at.
That this Honble 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 honble Court held that it is just and appropriate to
direct transfer as prayed for.

That in Honble 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 cant be leave alone.
Held, ground made and transfer petition allowed.

This Honble 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 at Bombay. This Honble
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, 1st 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 FILED BY
ARUN BHARADWAJ
RONAK KARANPURIA
ASHISH PANDEY
ADVOCATE
VISHWA PAL SINGH
DRAWN ON: 18.6.2015 Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED ON: 29.6.2015

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 AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE STAY

TO
THE HONBLE 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble

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 Honble 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 HONBLE 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
Honble Court.

PRAYER

In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this


Honble 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 Honble 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 FILED BY

ARUN BHARDWAJ Vishwa Pal Singh

RONAK KARANPURIA [ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER]

Drawn on: 28.6.2016

Filed on: 29.6.2016