Dismissed

Suraj Mukhi v. Chhotu Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2008TA/94/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an application seeking transfer of a divorce petition from Sirsa to Hisar. The court held that mere distance and the applicant's father's health condition were insufficient grounds for transfer, rejecting the claim that the petitioner had abandoned the child.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; respondent directed to deposit maintenance and pay Rs.500/- to petitioner-wife on each visit to Sirsa.

Suraj Mukhi Vs Chhotu Ram — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

TA No.94 of 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

TA No.94 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.12.2008

¶5

Surajmukhi .....Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Chhotu Ram ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr.Vikas Attri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶12

Prayer in this application is for transfer of the divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled as Chhotu Ram V. Surajmukhi filed by the respondent, pending before Sh.N.K. Biriwal, Judge Fast Track Court, Sirsa to the Court of Additional District Judge, Hisar.

¶13

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has filed two cases at Hisar, namely; a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. It is submitted that distance between Sirsa to Hisar is 100 kms. and as the applicant's father is bedridden, it is impossible for the applicant to travel from Hisar to Sirsa.

¶14

Counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has abandoned their child and began residing with her parents. The petition

¶15

TA No.94 of 2007

¶16

¶17

under Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act was filed by the applicant after the husband filed a divorce petition and even otherwise, mere distance is no ground to transfer a case filed before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to direct transfer of the divorce petition from Sirsa to Hisar. The petition filed by the applicant-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted after the husband filed a divorce petition. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are on the verge of conclusion. The distance of 100 kms. is insufficient to direct transfer of the case from Sirsa to Hisar. It would also be necessary to mention here that the minor child of the parties is living with the husband.

¶19

In view of what has been stated herein above, the application is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to forthwith deposit the amount of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and thereafter pay to the applicant-wife a sum of Rs.500/- on each date she visits Sirsa to defend the divorce petition.

¶20

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶21

15.12.2008 GS

Suraj Mukhi v. Chhotu Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Mukhi v. Chhotu Ram

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

P.R.T.C. Vs Gian Chand

P.S.E.B. and Ors. Vs Gopi Ram

Bina Kumari Vs Ircon International Ltd. and Anr.

Hethi Singh Vs Shiv Kumar

Karam Singh and Ors. Vs Bachan Kaur and Ors.

Hry. Tourism Copr. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Nathi Ram