Smt. Aarti v. Rajesh Kumar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Smt. Aarti Vs. Rajesh Kumar …..Petitioner …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit, Advocate for Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) As the petitioner alongwith her minor child is residing at Panchkula and has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Panchkula, she has prayed through the instant petition under Section 24 CPC to transfer the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage filed by respondent at Kurukshetra to District Courts, Panchkula. T.A. No. 438 of 2008 [2] The application has been opposed by counsel for the respondent. After considering the factors that the petitioner is staying with a female minor child at Panchkula where her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending, it will be expedient in the interest of justice in case the divorce petition filed by the respondent at Kurukshetra is transferred to Panchkula. Petition is allowed. File complete in all respect be sent by the Court of Sh.R.C.Bansal, District Judge, Kurukshetra to District Judge, Panchkula for October 24, 2009. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Panchkula on October 24, 2009. It will be open to District Judge, Panchkula, either to take up the case for adjudication or assign the same to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. September 4, 2009 sanjay (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 04 Sep 2009. The bench was M M S BEDI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.