Rahul-0007 (Others) 12 February 2014

To nullify divorce transfer to nagpur based on medical groun

To nullify Divorce transfer to Nagpur based on medical grounds? (NOTE: Grounds of filing for divorce is at the very bottom)

Dear Sir,

I have studies and worked in USA for last 12 years, during which period I had met a terrible accident in 2003, after which I was hospitalized for 6 & half months. I had following injuries:

· Open Heart Surgery - Aneurysm – So after repairing it the Heart Surgeons attached an artificial graft to my Thoracic Aorta.
· Right leg (Tieabia & Feburla bones broken) – Placed a Titanium Rod in my right leg.
· Had a severe Head Injury, as the left skull was broken, so I get loss balance while walking.
· Had Hernia operation on my abdomen.
· I was in Coma for 4 months so in that period I had developed Bed Sour on my left feet.

I am from Kolhapur and my wife is from Nagpur. She has done M-Tech from IIT New Delhi and is a Class-I officer at PWD, where she wants to transfer the case to Nagpur Currently I am unemployed. Also this accident was in 2003 and at first she totally denied all the allegations that I was ever in any accident, so I provided the discharge summary from Scott & White Hospital, Texas. Now their new allegation is that the accident was in 2003 and I have totally recovered.

We are going to have a last hearing date 2 weeks from now (Last week of Feb. 2014) and then the Judge will decide if the case has to be transferred to Nagpur or NOT.

Even my attorney told me that even the Judge said that all the laws are leaning towards women, so either you produce latest documents saying that he is unfit to travel, or the case will be transferred. MY QUESTIONS:

1) Is the judge allowed to say that all the laws are leaning towards women, when the law has to be “Gender Nutral”?

2) The opponents claim that I have recovered, but how is the artificial graft attached to my heart will recover or the same with the rod in my right leg?

Bad Circumstances on my side: I even went to the Government hospital, for making the new certificate, but after making me do all the tests, the heart surgeon is pushing the case to orthopedic and he is pushing it to podiatry…etc So finally one nurse told me that: “Your work will never be done in next 100 years unless to have a Strong Vashila/Recommendation from a big shot politician”. THAT IS MY POOR FATE!!!

Side Note: So what do you kind people suggest I should do? Everything here I have said is 100% truth but I am ALONE suffering, but the stupid biased laws are supporting my cruel wife who even Physically Tortured me by scratching my face till it was bleeding all over (I still have visible scars on my face, head and scalp, MADE A POLICE REPORT – Baltimore Police Station). But my lawyer said that it doesn’t help the transfer of the case. This we can contest for divorce later on.

How can I stop the transfer, because I know my cruel wife will drag this case to torture me and my family.

GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE: Mental and Physical torture. For Physical torture, made a Police Complaint in Baltimore in Jan. 2011, After she returned to India in Jan 2011, we have been separated for last 3 years, but for the 1st birthday of our son (April 2011) she refused all my family members to come to Nagpur for visit; Comparing her husband worse than Indian clerks or waiters (have her emails as a proof) She has created many fights among my brothers + Sister-in-laws, she goes to our relatives house and bad-mouth about us. She forced me to buy her Gold + Diamond + Emerald + Ruby jewelry worth thousands of US Dollars on my credit card and now claims that they are all fake from USA (What Bull $hit!!!)…and the list goes on and on………………

NOTE: Denying my past health history as non-existent and then as in-accurate also constitutes, as a MENTAL TORTURE !!! And all this she is lying under oath, in the court thru’ written responses/rejoinder, and still the law/system has made biased rules to support her……..WOW!!!

PLEASE HELP !!! GOD BLESS YOU ALL !!!

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 12 February 2014

https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/tc%2019105p.txt

ITEM NO.53                    COURT NO.4                     SECTION XVIA




              S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A

                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                      

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 191 OF 2005


ANINDITA DAS                                                Petitioner(s)


                        VERSUS


SRIJIT DAS                                                  Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay and office report )


WITH 


T.P.(C) NO. 146 of 2005

(With appln(s) for stay and early hearing and office report)




Date: 29/08/2005  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.




CORAM :

        HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE S.N. VARIAVA

        HON'BLE  MR. JUSTICE H.K. SEMA




For Petitioner(s)           Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.




For Respondent(s) Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv. 

                                        Mr. Arun K. Sinha,Adv.

                                        Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. 

                                        Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, adv. 

                                        Mr. S. Rohit Kumar, Adv. 

                                        Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.




           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

                               O R D E R 


                                  The transfer petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed orders. 




                          (K.K. Chawla)                                        (Jasbir Singh)

                          Court Master                                           Court Master


[Two separate signed orders are placed on the files]


                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



                                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION



                         TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.146 OF 2005 



ANINDITA DAS                                                Petitioner(s)


                        VERSUS


SRIJIT DAS                                                  Respondent(s)


                                                         O R D E R





                      In   this   case   notice   was   issued   limited   to   the   question   whether


         Respondent-husband   is   willing   to   pay  all   expenses   for   travel  and   stay  of   the


         Petitioner-wife and a companion. 


                      It is sought to be argued that in spite of the limited notice the petition


         should be  made absolute.   In our view, once a  limited notice is issued  it means


         that   the   other  reliefs   already  stand   rejected.     The   relief   in   the   Petition   must


         thereafter be confined only to those covered by the limited notice.


                      On  behalf  of   the  Respondent  it  is   stated   that  he  is   willing  to   pay  all


         expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every visit


         when the  Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi.  


                      Accordingly, we dismiss the Transfer Petition.  We, however, direct that


         the Respondent shall send in advance money for a 2nd class A.C. train journey for


         the Petitioner and a companion.  The Respondent shall also pay stay expenses of


         the Petitioner and her companion in a 3 Star Hotel for each and every occasion


         when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi.   The trial  court  shall ensure


that these monies are paid. 





                                ......................J.

                                (S.N. Variava)





                                ......................J.

                                (H.K. Sema)

New Delhi; 

August 29, 2005.


                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



                                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION



                         TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.191 OF 2005 



ANINDITA DAS                                                Petitioner(s)


                        VERSUS


SRIJIT DAS                                                  Respondent(s)


                                                         O R D E R





                      This transfer petition has been filed by the wife on the ground that the


         Petitioner has a small child of six years.  She has further claimed that she has no


         source of income and it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Delhi.  She has


         further claimed that she is not keeping good health. 


                      In support of this Petition, large number of authorities have been cited,


         namely,   Reena   Bahri   v.   Ajay   Bahri   reported   in   (2002)   10   SCC   136,   Leena


         Mukherjee  v.   Rabi   Shankar  Mukherjee  reported   in  (2002)   10   SCC   480,   Ram


         Gulam Pandit and Anr. v. Umesh J. Prasad reported in (2002) 10 SCC 551 and


         Rajwinder  Kaur  v.   Balwinder  Singh   reported   in   (2003)   11   SCC   726.     These


         authorities are  all based on the facts of their  respective cases.   They do  not  lay


         down any particular law which operates as a precedent. 


                      Even   otherwise,   it   must   be   seen   that   at   one   stage   this   Court   was


         showing leniency to ladies.  But since then it has been found that a large number


         of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by


         this Court.     On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of


each  Court  on  each  admission  day.    It   is,   therefore,  clear  that  leniency  of   this


Court is  being misused by the women.  


              This  Court  is  now  required  to  consider  each  petition  on  its  merit.    In


this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there


is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are


grand parents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay


all  expenses  for  travel  and  stay  for  the  Petitioner  and  her  companion  for  every


visit   when  the   Petitioner  is   required   to   attend   the   Court  at  Delhi.     Thus,   the


ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.


              Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given.


On  the  ground  that  she  is   not  able  to  come  to  Delhi  to   attend  the  Court  on  a


particular  date,   she   can   always   apply   for   exemption   and   her  application   will


undoubtedly be considered on its merit.  Hence, no ground for transfer has been


made out. 





              Accordingly, we dismiss the Transfer Petition.  We, however, direct that


the  Respondent shall pay all travel and  stay expenses of the Petitioner  and her


companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the Court


at Delhi. 


              The Respondent shall send in advance to the Petitioner money for a 2nd


Class A.C. train ticket for herself and a companion.   The Respondent shall also


pay  stay  expenses  of  the  Petitioner  and  her  companion  in  a    3-Star  Hotel.  The


trial  court  shall  ensure  that  the  Petitioner  has  been  paid  the  travel  expenses  in


advance and that the hotel expenses are paid to her on each and every occasion


when she is required to attend the Court at Delhi.





                                              ......................J.

                                              (S.N. Variava)





                                              ......................J.

                                              (H.K. Sema)

New Delhi; 

August 29, 2005.