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 …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 (a) Respondent no. (a) Main Category 18 classification: .1: Krishanraj Singh Jadeja (b) e-mail ID: NA © Mobile Phone Number: NA 4. Nature of Matter: Civil Criminal 2. 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.: Rajshree Chouhan (b) e-mail ID: [email protected] © Mobile Phone Number: NA 3. (a) Petitioner/appellant No. (b) Sub Classification: 18 T. Special Category (First Senior citizen>65 years NA petitioner/ appellant only) SC/ST NA Women/Child Yes Disabled NA 11. N. Similar/Pending matter: NA 7.6.P. Land Acquisition Matters: (a)Date of Section 4 NA Notification: 9. Criminal Matters: a)Whether accused/convict Yes No has surrendered: NA b) FIR No.A.A. Not to be listed before: NA 6.A. Tax Matters: State the tax NA effect: 10. Vehicle Number (in case of NA Motor Accident Claim matters): 12.2016 . Decided cases with NA Citation: FILED BY [VISHWAPAL SINGH] Advocate for the Petitioner Email: [email protected] FILED ON : 29. (d)Sentence Awarded: N. (e)Sentence Undergone: NA 8. ©Police Station: N. under Section 25 of CPC 5. Principal Judge. completely .S. as a united family but with dignity and respect..P. Family Court. the petitioner/wife prays for transfer of divorce petition family suit no. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that petitioner is an unemployed woman.C. deserted by her husband. Dave. Udaipur(Rajasthan) and petitioner/wife is willing and ready to live with the respondent/husband. in their matrimonial home. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Vadodara. SYNOPSIS By the way of present petition under section 25 of CPC. Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. Shri V. which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate. Rajshree Chouhan to the Family Court. Rajasthan That this Hon'ble Court may kindly consider that the petitioner has filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. Udaipur (Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur. Vadodara. Dave. Shri V. 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. Family Court. 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. 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.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. It is the wife's .S. mental and financial pressure. She is fighting for dignity & respect of being a woman which was vitiated by respondent and his family members. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that divorce petition was filed by husband against wife pending before before Ld. Principal Judge. 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. convenience that. therefore. . allowed the transfer petition. This Hon’ble Court. the court must consider the circumstances of wife and should not put her into more financial burden. for the better convenience of parties and in the interest of justice. That this Hon’ble Court in Lalita A. must be looked at.” 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. 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). 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. Therefore the transfer petition is allowed. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute. . 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. 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.That this Hon’ble Court in Veena Rani vs Vijay Kumar (2004) 13 SCC 503 held that transfer of matrimonial case from Lakshman Garh. This Hon’ble Court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case. 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. Rajasthan to Karnal. expressing her physical as well as financial inability to contest the petition at Bombay. This hon’ble Court held that it is just and appropriate to direct transfer as prayed for. dist. Alwar. transfer petition moved by wife allowed and transferred the petition from Bombay to Delhi. wife staying with her parents in delhi. It is of utmost significance that this Hon'ble Court has held in the case of Ajay Lawania Vs. Respondent/Krishanraj having illogical relationship with other girls that’s why his behavior with Petitioner turned cruel.5. Shobhna Dubey 2010 (15) SCC 354.5. one under Section 9 and the other under Section 13. arguments should be heard separately and thereafter. then. 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.2013 The marriage b/w petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.2013 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. He speaks in front of Petitioner with his . separate judgments should be delivered on one day. in order to avoid conflicting decisions. 2013-2014 Thereafter that respondent behavior was cruel/misbehaved with Petitioner. that it is well settled that if two petitions are filed under the Act. LIST OF DATES 12. They demanded dowry and continued to beat her. After that also Petitioner went again to her in-laws house and stayed there for 15 days. Gujarat on 28. During this period.2015 Petitioner went again to her in-laws home at Vadodara. 28. she stayed there with respondent and his family for almost 21 days. They tortured her mentally and physically and thereafter Petitioner come back to her maternal house. the demand of . respondent continued their cruel and brutual behavior. she stayed there for almost a week.7. he continued his brutual behavior and started to beat Petitioner and in this respondents mother supported him. girlfriend and continued to behave cruelly with Petitioner.2014 When Petitioner went back to her in-laws house on 17. With this kind of inhuman behavior of respondent and his family members and she got tensed and came back to her home in Udaipur.5.5. Then petitioner was subject to mental and physically cruelty and harassed by respondent demanding dowry 17.2014. In that period behavior was inhuman and cruel and demand of dowry violence continued. Even after telling respondent to not to talk to other girls.7.2015. Then also behavior of respondent & his mother was cruel towards Petitioner. thereafter went back to her mother-father’s house at Udaipur. South-2. respondent & his mother towards Petitioner started quarreling for flour on 2.S. respondent did not even reacted and did not even stopped his parents. 177 of 2016 filed by petitioner herein under section 125 Cr. 1955. Vadodara. On this Petitioner with her Maternal Uncle’s daughter went to Makarapura Police Station. Dave.4.6.2015 During this period. Rajasthan. 2. Principal Judge. Vadodara. Udaipur. Family Court.6. 20. Then after respondent and his family never tried to convince her or asked her to come back.P.2015 and then Petitioner’s in- laws started beating her and she was strangulated.C. before Judicial Magistrate. Rajshree Chouhan for divorce under section 13(1)(1A) and (1B) of Hindu Marriage Act. dowry continued. Rajasthan 29.2. Gujarat and filed a complaint.2016 The respondent filed a divorce petition family suit no. Shri V.2016 Hence the transfer petition .2016 The maintenance petition case no. 17.6. Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. 107 of 2016 before Ld. . SHRI V. 1908 FOR TRANSFER OF THE FAMILY SUIT NO. Gujarat …. RAJASTHAN] IN THE MATTER OF:- Rajshree Chouhan Aged 27 years W/o Krishanraj Singh Jadeja D/o Sh. Udaipur. Tehsil Girwa. Permanent Add: Bumbora. District Udaipur. Vadodara. 107/2016 PENDING BEFORE LD. Shree Ram Colony.S. ___ OF 2016 [PETITION UNDER SECTION 25 OF CPC. FAMILY COURT. DAVE. . Pratap Nagar. VADODARA. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. Rajasthan …Petitioner Versus Krishanraj Singh Jadeja Aged 30 years. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India And His companion judges of the Supreme Court of India at New Delhi. GUJARAT TO THE FAMILY COURT IN UDAIPUR. Vikram Singh Chouhan R/o presently at 37. Rajasthan.Respondent TO. S/o Harvijay Singh Jadeja R/o Moti Nagar-2. Tersali. Ring Road. PRINCIPAL JUDGE. Principal Judge. By way of the present petition under Section 25 of the C.C. r/w order XLI of the S. 2. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition before this Court or any other Court. Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs.C. Family Court. 2013.S. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Rajshree Chouhan to the Family Court.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. The humble petition of the petitioner above named: MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:- 1. The marriage b/w petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.1908. Dave.P. That the facts giving rise to the present petition are stated as under: i.. Shri V. 3. . Rajasthan.R. Udaipur (Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur. Vadodara.5. the petitioner/wife prays for transfer of divorce petition family suit no. Even after telling respondent to not to talk to other girls. Respondent/Krishanraj having illogical relationship with other girls that’s why his behavior with Petitioner turned cruel. Thereafter that respondent behavior was cruel/misbehaved with Petitioner. he continued his brutual behavior and started to beat Petitioner and in this respondents mother supported him. They abused and misbehaved petitioner on several occasion and put petitioner in the state of depression. 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. Then petitioner was subject to mental and physically cruelty and harassed by respondent demanding dowry iv.ii.2014. iii. When Petitioner went back to her in-laws house on 17. He speaks in front of Petitioner with his girlfriend and continued to behave cruelly with Petitioner.7. she stayed there with respondent and his . In that period behavior was inhuman and cruel and demand of dowry violence continued.2015 and then Petitioner’s in-laws started beating her and she was strangulated. During this period. respondent did not even reacted and did not even stopped his parents. On this Petitioner with her Maternal Uncle’s daughter went to . vi. With this kind of inhuman behavior of respondent and his family members and she got tensed and came back to her home in Udaipur. Gujarat on 28. family for almost 21 days. v. the demand of dowry continued.2015. Then also behavior of respondent & his mother was cruel towards Petitioner.6. After that also Petitioner went again to her in- laws house and stayed there for 15 days. They demanded dowry and continued to beat her. respondent & his mother towards Petitioner started quarreling for flour on 2. she stayed there for almost a week. They tortured her mentally and physically and thereafter Petitioner come back to her maternal house.5. respondent continued their cruel and brutual behavior. During this period. Petitioner went again to her in-laws home at Vadodara. vii. Dave.2016 the respondent filed a divorce petition family suit no. Rajasthan.S. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. That on 17. Family Court. Vadodara in the year 2016 on the ground that petitioner left the matrimonial house without any reasons. Then after respondent and his family never tried to convince her or asked her to come back. That the divorce petition was filed by respondent before Family Court. Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. 1955. Rajshree Chouhan under section 13(1)(1A) and (1B) of Hindu Marriage Act. viii. Shri V. thereafter went back to her mother-father’s house at Udaipur. That aforementioned divorce petition was filed to harass petitioner herein. A true translated copy of petition is annexed and marked as Annexure P-1 (page ___ to ____) . Makarapura Police Station. Vadodara. Gujarat and filed a complaint. ix.2. Vadodara. Principal Judge. 4.P. unemployed. Because the Petitioner is not in a position to travel 10 hours journey (appr. C.2016 the maintenance petition filed by petitioner herein under section 125 Cr. 1st Class. Udaipur. Gujarat. 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. Because the Petitioner. 600 k. Rajasthan to Vadodara. 2. x. Gujarat alone. Rajasthan. B.ms. That on 20. That the instant Transfer Petition is sought for on the following grounds:- GROUNDS A.) from her residence at Udaipur. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court ought to have transferred the divorce petition filed by respondent/husband. is not in financial position to afford travel to Vadodara. Court no.C. being lady. South-2. dependents on her parents. . A true copy of petition is annexed and marked as Annexure P-2 (page no _16__ to __18__) 4. Gujarat and stay at Vadodara. before Judicial Magistrate. That this Hon’ble Court in Anju Ohri vs Varinder ohri (2007) 15 SCC 556 hold that divorce proceeding filed by husband at chandigarh. 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).In Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay AndAnr AIR 2002 SC 396 that “it is the husband's suit against the wife. wife residing in Delhi. This Hon’ble Court held that husband suit against wife and therefore convenience of wife must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute. Bihar where wife resides in Delhi. Therefore the transfer petition is allowed. That this Hon’ble Court in Lalita A. therefore. the court must consider the circumstances of wife and should not put her into more financial burden. Bhojpur. It is the wife's convenience that. where present divorce petition filed by Husband in Ara. Wife residing in Delhi express her inability to contest the said case in Ara. This Hon’ble Court hold that for the better convenience of parties and in the interest of justice allow the transfer petition. must be looked at.” 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. . 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. transfer petition moved by wife allowed and transferring the petition from Bombay to Delhi.C. 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. This hon’ble Court held that it is just and appropriate to direct transfer as prayed for. Rajasthan to Karnal. Alwar. This Hon’ble Court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case. wife staying with her parents in delhi. dist. E. South-2. ground made and transfer petition allowed. 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. That this Hon’ble Court in Veena Rani vs Vijay Kumar (2004) 13 SCC 503 held that transfer of matrimonial case from LakshmanGarh. in Udaipur.P.000/-. expressing her physical as well as financial inability to contest the petition at Bombay. . BECAUSE petition under section 125 Cr. This Hon’ble Court in Mona Aresh Goyal vs Aresh SatyaGoel (2000) 9 SCC 255 held that divorce petition filed by husband at Bombay. Because respondent/husband is a posted as mechanical engineer and having monthly income of Rs 40. Held. Rajasthan. 1st Class. for maintenance filed by petitioner herein is pending for adjudication before Judicial Magistrate. D. I. K. BECAUSE petitioner herein is unemployed and is currently living with her parents in Udaipur. as a united family and continue to fulfill all the matrimonial relations but with dignity and respect. BECAUSE this Hon'ble Court may kindly consider that the petitioner is willing and ready to live with the respondent in their matrimonial home. BECAUSE Vadodara is approximately 600 km away from Udaipur which take 10 hrs of travelling in one way. 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. deserted by her husband. H. G. J. completely dependent upon her parents and so far no maintenance nor litigation expenses has been . 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. 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. Rajasthan L. BECAUSE this Hon’ble Court may kindly consider that petitioner is an unemployed woman. 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.F. S. BECAUSE the respondent belongs from a very rich family and it is convenient for him to travel from Vadodara to Udaipur. awarded or provided by respondent herein for the maintenance wife/petitioner. otherwise great . Rajasthan. 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. PRAYER It is. most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- i) Pass an order transferring divorce petition family suit no. 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. Vadodara. 107 of 2016 filed by respondent/husband before Ld. Gujarat titled Krishanraj Singh Jadeja vs. therefore. Shri V. mental and financial pressure. Udaipur (Rajasthan) or any other competent court in Udaipur. Principal Judge. Rajshree Chouhan to the Family Court. Rajasthan M. N. Vadodara. Gujarat be transferred to Family Court in Udaipur. Dave. Family Court. ___________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 . AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER BEING DUTY BOUND. SHALL EVER PRAY. NO.6.2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I. DRAWN BY FILED BY ARUN BHARADWAJ RONAK KARANPURIA ASHISH PANDEY ADVOCATE VISHWA PAL SINGH DRAWN ON: 18. ii) Pass any other further order as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.A.6. prejudice and hardship will be caused to the petitioner.2015 Advocate for the Petitioner FILED ON: 29. P. Dave. Gujarat. Principal Judge. unemployed. deserted by her husband. 1908. Shri V. By the way of present petition under section 25 of C. 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. That the facts stated in accompanying transfer petition may be kindly read as part of this petition also. 2. That this Hon’ble Court should consider that petitioner being a lady. Vadodara. 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. Family Court. the petitioner prays for transfer of Family Suit No. Rajasthan.S. Shri V.S.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. Family Court. Vadodara. 3.C. Gujarat as well as to pursue her own studies . 107/2016 pending before Ld. Principal Judge. Gujarat to any other competent court in Udaipur. Dave. Vadodara. 1955 for divorce was filed by respondent herein and petition u/s 125 Cr. 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. That the petition u/s 13(1)(1a)(1b) of Hindu Marriage Act. 5. Udaipur. 4. Rajasthan in the interest of justice. Rajasthan. 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. and such a physical.C. PRAYER It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass:- .P. for maintenance was filed by petitioner herein is pending before Judicial Magistrate. Gujarat to Family Court in Udaipur. mental and financial pressure. 6.A. Principal Judge. 107/2016 pending before Ld. a) An ad-interim ex-parte stay order staying the proceeding of Family Suit No. NO.S. Dave.2016 Filed by VISHWA PAL SINGH New Delhi Advocate for petitioner IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I. Shri V. Vadodara.___________OF 2016 IN TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO______OF 2016 IN THE MATTER OF:- RAJSHREE CHOUHAN …PETITIONER VERSUS . Family Court. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER SHALL IN DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY Filed on 29. Gujarat b) such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. P. Gujarat to any other competent court in Udaipur. 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 . By the way of present petition under section 25 of C. 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.C. 1908. Shri V. Vadodara. Rajasthan. Family Court. 3. 2. Dave. Principal Judge. 107/2016 pending before Ld. the petitioner prays for transfer of Family Suit No.S.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. DRAWN BY FILED BY ARUN BHARDWAJ Vishwa Pal Singh RONAK KARANPURIA [ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER] Drawn on: 28. b) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. PRAYER In the above premises.6. YOUR HUMBLE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.6.2016 . 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. case the prayers made below are not allowed by this Hon’ble Court. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS.2016 Filed on: 29.