Smt. Vinay Kapania v. Sh. Rajan Kapania
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Oct 2009
- Bench
- HEMANT GUPTA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.C. Kapur, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The petitioner has sought transfer of…
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri J.C. Kapur, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The petitioner has sought transfer of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [ for short `the Act' ] and also a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.1.2000 and two children were born out of the wedlock on 30.11.2000 and 9.2.2002 respectively. It is the case of TA No. 61 of 2009 [2] the petitioner that she was maltreated and turned out of the matrimonial home on 16.6.2007 and she was forced to go to her parental house along with her children.
Thereafter, the respondent has filed the aforesaid petition for restitution of conjugal rights and for the custody of the minor children. It is pointed out by the petitioner that she has already filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending at Phagwara and also lodged an FIR for the offences under Section 406, 498-A IPC, which is also pending at Phagwara. It is also pointed out that both the children are school going and the attendance of the proceedings at Chandigarh disturbs the education of the children, as her old parents are unable to look after the minor children. Efforts were made for reconciliation of the disputes between the parties, but the same remained unsuccessful. Apart from the aforesaid two proceedings, which are pending at Chandigarh, the competent Court at Kapurthala is seized of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR lodged at the instance of the petitioner are also pending at Kapurthala.
The petitioner is to maintain small children and is also not possessed of sufficient means to attend the proceedings as she is seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, it will be in the interest of justice, to transfer the aforesaid two cases pending at Chandigarh to the Court of learned District Judge, Kapurthala. Ordered accordingly. It shall be TA No. 61 of 2009 [3] open to the learned District Judge, to entrust the petition to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, may take into consideration the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings arising out of the FIR for the offences under Section 406, 498-A IPC, while entrusting the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The transferee Court shall consider the fixation of the same day for the proceedings inter- partes to avoid inconvenience to the parties. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kapurthala, on 26.11.2009, for further proceedings, in accordance with law. 21-10-2009 [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 9; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — s. 25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 21 Oct 2009. The bench was HEMANT GUPTA.
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.