Allowed

Sunita v. Amarjit

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2010TA/347/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer application, the court was requested to move a divorce petition from Narnaul to Sirsa for the convenience of the applicant, who resided at Sirsa and was already involved in multiple proceedings against the respondent there. The petition allows the transfer to Narnaul.

What did the court decide?

Modified the divorce petition filed at Narnaul to Sirsa, for hearings on the date specified whether by itself or other competent court.

Sunita Vs Amarjit — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

T.A. No. 347 of 2010 [ 1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

T.A. No. 347 of 2010 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision: 14.10.2010

Sunita

Amarjit

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

Prayer in the application is for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent at Narnaul to Sirsa.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the parties was solemnised on 10.5.2007. On 1.2.2009, the applicant was turned out of the matrimonial home after giving severe beatings. She was even medically examined in the hospital. FIR was also got registered against the respondent on 3.2.2009, in which after investigation challan has also been presented against the respondent and other accused. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was also filed in which a sum of ` 1,000/- per month has been fixed as interim maintenance. Even that is not being paid by the respondent. A petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also filed against the respondent. In all the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent is appearing at Sirsa. The divorce petition has been filed by the respondent at Narnaul only to take revenge from the applicant. As it is the convenience of the applicant, which is to be seen, the proceedings therein may be transferred to Sirsa.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some efforts were made for reconciliation and transfer of the petition may put a hurdle in that. However, it was not disputed that for the purpose, the date was fixed before the Mediation Centre at Narnaul on 5.10.2010 and no development as such has taken place.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, considering the fact that there are three different proceedings pending against the husband at Sirsa, which are prior in time, the divorce petition filed by the husband

¶17

T.A. No. 347 of 2010 [ 2]

¶18

at Narnaul deserves to be transferred to Sirsa, as it would be quite difficult for the wife to attend the hearings of the divorce petition at Narnaul, which is located at quite a distance therefrom and further as the respondent is already appearing in the cases against him at Sirsa. The parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Sirsa on 13.11.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Sirsa may either keep the petition with him or entrust the same to any other competent court.

¶19

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶21

14.10.2010 mk

Sunita v. Amarjit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita v. Amarjit

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

Jagan Nath Huria Vs State of Haryana

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mehar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raunak Chand Vs C.B.I.

Maluk Singh Vs Suraj Mukhi

Puneet Kaur Vs Rajbinder Singh @ Rajwinder Singh