Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, the instant transfer petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN ...Respondent Present: Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral) This is an application filed under Section 24 read with Section 151 CPC for transfer of divorce petition titled as `Vishal Gupta Vs. Amita Gupta' filed by the respondent from the court of Sirsa to the court of competent jurisdiction at Muktsar. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant alongwith her minor daughter moved a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. at Malout for maintenance. He further submits that and FIR No. 27 dated
17.2.2010 under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC at Police Station Malout was also lodged against the respondent and other family members. It has further been submitted that divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has now been filed by the respondent only with a view to harass the applicant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits TA No.314-SB of 2010 2 that in case the present application is to be allowed then the case titled as `Vishal Gupta Vs. Amita Gupta' may be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as under:- “We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reason not to do so.
No special reason is shown.” The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Sirsa. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, to attend the court proceedings at Sirsa. Amita Gupta, applicant-wife, is residing at Malout, which falls within the jurisdiction of District Muktsar. As per reply, the distance between Malout and Muktsar is about 40 kms, whereas distance between Sirsa and Muktsar is approximately 140 kms. The distance between Malout and Bathinda is also 40 kms. In the circumstances, it would certainly be in the interest of justice for both the parties, if the case titled as Vishal Gupta Vs. Amita Gupta' is withdrawn from the court of Sirsa and is transferred to the court at Bathinda. The learned counsel for the applicant does not have any objection if the said case is transferred to the courts at Bathinda.
Operative part
In view of the above, the instant transfer petition is allowed TA No.314-SB of 2010 3 and petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as Vishal Gupta Vs. Amita Gupta' is withdrawn from the Court of District Judge, Sirsa and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. File shall be sent by the trial Court at Sirsa to the learned District Judge, Bathinda, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Bathinda on 15.2.2011.
12.1.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes / No
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the instant transfer petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — ss. 24, 151; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 12 Jan 2011. The bench was JITENDRA CHAUHAN.
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.