Allowed

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

Delhi HC12 Jan 2024TR.P.(C.)/189/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of restitution of conjugal rights and divorce petitions from Tis Hazari to Dwarka District Courts, where her domestic violence case was pending. Husband consented subject to continuation from current stage and a time-bound schedule. Transfer allowed with direction to conclude within eight months.

What did the court decide?

HMA 575/2006 and HMA 2698/2022 transferred to competent Court at Dwarka District Courts; record to be transmitted; cases heard together and concluded within eight months.

Lalita Yadav Vs Mam Raj Yadav — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47and 48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- TR.P.(C.) 189/2023 and CM APPL. 63104/2023 (Stay)

¶4

LALITA YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

MAM RAJ YADAV ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Siddharth Sikri and Ms. Kirti Singh, Advs.

¶7

- TR.P.(C.) 190/2023 and CM APPL. 63106/2023(Stay)

¶8

LALITA YADAV ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta, Adv.

¶9

versus

¶10

MAM RAJ YADAV ..... Respondent Through: Through: Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. Siddharth Sikri and Ms. Kirti Singh, Advs.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶12

TR.P.(C.) 189/2023 and TR.P.(C.) 190/2023

¶13

1. The petitioner and the respondent, in these transfer petitions, are wife and husband. They were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 15 May 2002.

¶14

2. Shorn of superfluities, it may straightway be noted that, owing

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR TR.P.(C.) 189/2023 & cont. matter Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:13.0 1.20 24 14:58

¶17

to alleged fiction between the parties, the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home. She, thereafter, filed HMA 575/2006 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. That petition is presently pending at Tis Hazari Courts.

¶18

3. There are two other litigations between the parties. One is CA 329/2019, which was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending before the District Courts at Dwarka. The second is HMA 2698/2022, instituted by the respondent against the petitioner seeking divorce, which is presently pending before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari.

¶19

4. The prayer of the petitioner, in this case, is that as she is staying alone and it is extremely difficult for her to travel the distance to Tis Hazari Courts to prosecute the HMA petitions and the divorce petition, which are pending between the parties, and as the petition under the Domestic Violence Act is already pending before Dwarka Courts, HMA 575/2006 and HMA 2698/2022 be transferred to the Dwarka Courts.

¶20

5. Mr. Kush, learned Counsel for the respondent, after some initial opposition, agreed to the transfer subject to two conditions. The first was that the proceedings would continue from the stage at which they were presently. The second was that a time bound schedule be fixed for HMA 575/2006 and HMA 2698/2022 to be completed.

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR TR.P.(C.) 189/2023 & cont. matter Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:13.0 1.20 24 14:58

¶22

6. Mr. Mehta, who appears for the petitioner, is agreeable to both conditions.

¶23

7. Accordingly, HMA 575/2006 and HMA 2698/2022 stand transferred to the competent Court in the Dwarka District Courts. The Court is, however, directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings and pass final orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight months from today.

¶24

8. These petitions stand allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶25

9. The Registry of the Tis Hazari Courts is directed to take expeditious steps to transmit the record of HMA 575/2006 and HMA 2698/2022 to the Dwarka Courts.

¶26

10. Needless to say, both the cases would be heard together.

¶27

CM APPL. 63104/2023 (Stay) and CM APPL. 63106/2023(Stay)

¶28

11. These applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶29

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶30

JANUARY 12, 2024 rb

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶33

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR TR.P.(C.) 189/2023 & cont. matter Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:13.0 1.20 24 14:58

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Mahesh Talreja Vs Radha Savitri Sindhi Dharamshala Charitabletrust & Ors.

Annu Malik Vs Dr. Dushyant Chopra

Sangeeta Vs Neetu

Welcomgroup Cghs Limited Vs M/S. Omstar Constructions Co. P Ltd.

Rohit Kumar Vs Raj Pal Singh and Ors.

Sudipta Basu Vs Rupa Basu

Dr. Rajni Palriwala Vs Rita Mohan & Ors.

Sh Sushil Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Mr. Nilesh Shobhagmal Shah Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rishita Shukla Vs Daulatram College & Ors.

Shri Nirankar Vs Shri Pawansut & Anr.

Mst. Lakshya through Natural Guardian Sh. Mahendra Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Zoya Farid Khan Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Lalita Yadav Vs Mam Raj Yadav