Partly allowed

Harjit Singh v. Hapninder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Apr 2009CR/1329/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the transfer of a divorce by mutual consent petition from the District Judge, Ludhiana to the District Judge, Chandigarh. The court found the continued pendency inappropriate after consent statements were recorded and the opposition was withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the petition from the Court of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana to the Court of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh with directions to dispose of the matter according to law.

Harjit Singh Vs Hapninder Kaur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1329 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Civil Revision No. 1329 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.04.2009.

Harjit Singh

Petitioners

Versus

Hapninder Kaur

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

¶12

Present: Mr. Sukhjit Singh,Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

S.D.ANAND, J.

¶15

The following facts are apparent from the record:-

¶16

The partied filed a plea under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for the grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent, in the Court of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana. The statement of the parties at the time of first motion were recorded on 30.5.2006 (Annexure P-2). The statements, at the time second motion, were recorded on 5.6.2007 (Annexure P-6). In the meantime, the wife had filed an application (Annexure P-4) for being allowed to withdraw her consent. The averment, in the context, was that her consent for the purpose of aforementioned had been obtained by fraud. She withdrew that statement by making the following statement on 5.6.2007 (Annexure

¶17

Civil Revision No. 1329 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

¶20

P-5) in the presence of her learned counsel:-

¶21

“I do not want to proceed with my application dated 22.12.2006 and withdraw the same. Now I have received the settled payment.”

¶22

Inspite thereof, the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, did not proceed to pass an order, in the context of the joint plea filed by the parties in accordance with law.

¶23

At the time of motion hearing, the only grievance of the petitioner was that there was no understandable reason for the continued pendency of petition under Section 13 of the Act in view of the fact that the parties had made a consent statement at the time of first motion and reiterated it at the time of second motion as well. The precise grievance was that the learned District Judge was refraining from passing any orders in the context without any justification or whatsoever. It was after noticing the averment that this Court directed that a status report about the facts be obtained from the learned District Judge, Ludhiana.

¶24

In the course of the status report, the learned District Judge, Ludhiana has conceded that respondent had withdrawn the application (Annexure P-4) on 5.6.2007. He has further pointed out that on 16.7.200, respondent-Hapninder Kaur had filed yet another application for the grant of more time for disposal of the petition. Reply to that application was filed on 7.8.2007. Further, on 23.10.2007, the respondent-Hapninder Kaur yet another application for withdrawal of consent. The District Judge further indicates in the

¶25

Civil Revision No. 1329 of 2009

¶26

-3-

¶27

********

¶28

course of the status report that he has framed the following issues on 26.3.2009 and the matter had been adjourned to 8.4.2009 for recording the evidence of the petitioner:-

¶29

“1. Whether by mis-representation and fraud, the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was got filed from petitioner no.2 (OPP-2).

¶30

1. Whether petitioner no.2 was forced to make statements in the Court on 30.5.2006 and on 5.6.2007 due to pressure and undue influence practised on her (OPP-2)

¶31

1. Relief”.

¶32

It is apparent from the record that the parties made consensual statement at the time of first motion and also second motion(30.5.2006 and 5.6.2007 respectively). The application dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-4) having been withdrawn on 5.6.2007 (Annexure P-5), the desks were clear for the passing of order in accordance with law.

¶33

Though the wife did file certain applications thereafter and the matter is presently before that Court for adjudication thereof, there is no escape from conclusion that it is the deferment of the disposal of the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act which, in a way, 'facilitated' the 'reception' of further applications. The moment consent statements were made by the parties at the time of second motion, orders in accordance with law ought to have followed. Having stated the obvious intention of the law, I do not

¶34

Civil Revision No. 1329 of 2009

¶35

-4-

¶36

¶37

wish to comment upon that aspect any further, particularly when the adjudication of the certain applications is pending consideration at the hands of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana.

¶38

In the circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in allowing the verbal request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the transfer of the petition from the Court of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana to the Court of the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The facts obtaining on the file do give an impression that the continued pendency of the matter at the hands of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana is inappropriate.

¶39

The petition shall stand transferred from the Court of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, to the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh. The transferee Court shall retain this case on its own Board and pass orders in accordance with law. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the transferor Court shall forthwith forward the record of the case to the transferee Court.

¶40

It is made clear otherwise that nothing contained in this order shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the validity or otherwise of the matters pending for adjudication. The transferee Court shall dispose of the matter, completely unfazed by the observations aforementioned.

¶41

The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶42

April 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge

Harjit Singh v. Hapninder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Singh v. Hapninder Kaur

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

Joginder Kaur Vs Gurbachan Kaur etc.

Dalbir Singh etc. Vs Gurbachan Singh etc.

Himmat Singh and Ors. Vs Dinanath and Ors.

Madan Pal Vs Parvesh Kumari

Gurdial Kaur Vs Dilbag Singh

Jogi Ram & Ors. Vs Kishni Devi & Ors.