Anuradha Nilesh Singh vs Nilesh Dinesh Singh (SC) (Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1256/2014)
For this purpose, learned counsel invited our attention to the averments made in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by them. The same are reproduced hereunder:
“8. That the allegations contained in complaint case filed by the petitioner is also completely denied, which has been filed later on after receiving the notice of the divorce petition only as a counter blast. Similarly, the interim maintenance application filed by the petitioner in the divorce case is also bereft of any logic or proper reasoning. It is quite noticeable to see the quantum of demand made by the petitioner while she herself is earning handsomely. It is pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has worked as High 16:38:12 IST Reason: Positions in the reputed companies like Coca Cola, Real Estate Giant Indo Asian Buildcon, Sife India, Mott Mcdowell etc. and the demand made by her shows her greed for money at any cost, be it her marriage or fidelity. To get the sympathy of courts, she has presented a picture of a weak and tortured woman while the reality is quite opposite. It is quite noticeable to see that she has not said anything about her present working status, in fact she has conveniently suppressed this fact and has claimed that she is dependent upon her parents.
9. That the picture presented of herself that she is dependent upon her parents is really deplorable and so the grounds of transfer are not sustainable at all. In fact, the petitioner kept on working at Mumbai after her separation from the respondent and was residing with her aunt and so there is no case of transfer made out. Otherwise also, she does not require anybody's assistance to contest the case as she is quite capable of doing the same on her own, both financially and physically. The ground taken by her that nobody among her close relatives are at Mumbai is also false as her maternal aunt, who has been referred to many number of times in the transfer petition itself, resides at Mira Road, Mumbai, where the respondent used to reside also after the separation. Under such circumstances the principle of dominius litis cannot be waived and the case must be allowed to continue at Vasai, only.”
” In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any justification for transferring the petition, as sought for. The transfer petition is accordingly, dismissed.