Dismissed

Madhu Gandotra v. Rakesh Kumar

J&K HC9 Sept 2021CTA/20/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act proceedings from Samba to Kathua citing travel inconvenience and childcare responsibilities. The Judge dismissed the application, finding the courts are less than 55 km apart and intergrade connectivity eliminates substantial hardship.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer of proceedings from Court of Principal District Judge, Samba to Court of Principal District Judge, Kathua was dismissed.

Madhu Gandotra Vs Rakesh Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No.18

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CTA No.20/2017 IA No.1/2017

¶4

Madhu Gandotra

¶5

...Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through :- Mr. Maneesh Rampal, Advocate.

v/s

Rakesh Kumar

.....Respondent (s)

Through :- None.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

09.09.2021

¶14

1. Through the medium of this application, the petitioner is seeking transfer of petition titled “Rakesh Kumar Vs. Mandhu Gandotra” , File No.44/HM preferred by respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Kathua.

¶15

2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is working as a Teacher and is presently posted in district Kathua and that she has to look after a female child. The petitioner has sought transfer of the proceedings from the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Kathua on the ground that she has to travel about 100 kilometers of journey to attend the Court proceedings at Samba and that has to shoulder the responsibility of a small child. It is also averred that she has also moved an application under Section 488 of Jammu and Kashmir Cr.P.C at Kathua, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties to contest all their cases at one place i.e., Kathua.

¶16

2 CTA No.20/2017

¶17

3. The application has been resisted by the respondent on the grounds that he is a resident of remote village in Tehsil Ramgarh and it would be inconvenient for him to travel to Kathua to contest the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which is pending before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Samba, if the same is transferred to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Kathua.

¶18

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

¶19

5. Admittedly the petitioner is posted at Hira Nagar and she is presently residing at Kathua. So far as the respondent is concerned, he is admittedly a resident of Tehsil Ramgarh, District Samba. The distance between two the Courts i.e., District Court Samba and District Court Kathua is less than 55 kilometers and both the Courts are located adjoining the National Highway. Therefore, there will hardly be any inconvenience to any of the parties to travel between Samba and Kathua and vice-versa. It is not a case where the petitioner would be put to inconvenience if she is asked to contest the case at Samba having regard to the location of the cities and the connectivity between the two cites.

¶20

6. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed .

¶21

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶22

Jammu: 09.09.2021 Surinder Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No

¶23

SURINDER KUMAR 2021.09.10 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Madhu Gandotra v. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Gandotra v. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Koul and Ors. Vs Chander Prabha and Ors.

Balwan Singh Vs Pawan Singh

Anuradha Gadroo Vs Rajesh Thusoo

Anita Attri Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jabeena Begum and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Gulnaz Begum and Ors.