Allowed

Sangeeta v. Sharvan Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2011TA/247/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred an application filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act from Gurgaon to Narnaul. Considering the applicant-wife’s financial hardship and residence in Mohindergarh, the court prioritized her convenience over the respondent’s fear of harassment.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 13(1) of the Act filed by the respondent is transferred from Gurgaon to Narnaul; the record shall be sent to the District Judge, Narnaul.

Sangeeta Vs Sharvan Kumar — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

TA No.247 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

TA No.247 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.10.2011.

Smt.Sangeeta

....Applicant

Versus

Sharvan Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present: Mr.Anil Kumar Ghanghas, Advocate for Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the respondent

¶12

¶13

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as ‘Sharvan Kumar vs. Smt.Sangeeta’, filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Narnaul.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is residing at village Jhuk, District Mohindergarh. She is having a minor

¶16

TA No.247 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶17

child. She has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the learned Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mohindergarh. Further contends the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13(1) of the Act is only to harass the applicant.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the respondent apprehends threat to his life and liberty at the hands of the applicant and his family members, in case he goes to Narnaul to attend the Court proceedings.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs

¶21

Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as

¶22

under:-

¶23

“We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, conveniencewise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown.”

¶24

The applicant-wife alongwith her minor child is residing at village Jhuk, District Mohindergarh. There is no male member in the family except her father, who is also in Govt. Service in Utter Pradesh, to accompany her to Gurgaon for attending the court proceedings in the

¶25

TA No.247 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶26

petition filed by the husband-respondent. She has no source of income. Thus, it would certainly be difficult for the wife, saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor child and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Gurgaon.

¶27

Considering the fact that the applicant is presently residing at village Jhuk, District Mohindergarh, she has no source of income and primarily, the convenience of the wife in the circumstances cannot be ignored, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife. Accordingly, the present application deserves to be allowed.

¶28

In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13(1) of the Act titled as ‘Sharvan Kumar vs. Smt.Sangeeta’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Narnaul. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13(1) of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Gurgaon to the learned District Judge, Narnaul, within three weeks, who will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Narnaul.

¶29

The parties shall appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Narnaul, on 28.11.2011 at 10 AM.

¶30

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶31

19.10.2011 gsv

Sangeeta v. Sharvan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta v. Sharvan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manwinder Singh @ Maninder Singh & Ors. Vs Baltej Singh & Ors.

Kamla Devi Vs Birbal and Others

Subhashni Verma Vs Mandeep Singh and Others

Krishna Wanti Vs Punjab State Electricity Board Now Pspc Ltd. & or.

Karan Singh Vs Vijay Arora and Ors.

Madhu @ Sapna Vs Pancham Verma