Rupinder Kaur v. Sukhwinder Singh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.HS Gharuan, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent **** Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as “Sukhwinder Singh vs. Rupinder Kaur” filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') by the respondent- husband, from the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh to the court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant after having been ousted from the matrimonial home is residing with her parents at Patiala. She is maintaining two young children, born out of the wedlock. The petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is prior in time. TA No.667 of 2011 2 Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.
He is thus proceeded against ex-parte. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the file. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that the applicant, after having been ousted from the matrimonial home, is presently residing with her parents at Patiala. She is maintaining two young children, born out of the wedlock. There are averments of continuous beatings and harassment of the applicant by the respondent. The petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is prior in time. The petition filed by the respondent- husband seems to be a counter blast. It is well settled principle of law that convenience of the wife is to be seen in the matters filed by the husband against the wife, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumitra Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396, Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC) , and Mangla Patil Kale vs.
Operative part
Sanjeev Kumar (2003) 10 SCC 280. Considering the fact that the applicant is presently residing at Patiala; it would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her two young children, to attend the court proceedings at Chandigarh. In the petition filed by the husband, primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-husband. TA No.667 of 2011 3 In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed. Petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as “Sukhwinder Singh vs. Rupinder Kaur” is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. The complete record pertaining to the case in question shall be sent by the trial court at Chandigarh to the learned District Judge, Patiala, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Patiala will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any court of competent jurisdiction. The parties, through their counsel, shall appear before the court of learned District Judge, Patiala on 21.4.2012.
13.3.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
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 application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Mar 2012. 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.