The High Court dismissed an application seeking transfer of a Hindu Marriage Act petition from Faridabad to Amritsar. The court held the respondent's petition was prior in time and cited precedent to reject the transfer.
Application for transfer of Section 13 HMA petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TA No.253 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TA No.253 of 2011
Date of decision : 05.10.2011
Babita
...Applicant
Versus
Chander Pal Sharma
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Sh. Vineet Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Sh. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
TA No.253 of 2011 2
Section 13 of the Act is that the two petitions, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending before the competent Courts at Amritsar.
“4. 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 Sisra to Hisar….”
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
05.10.2011 atulsethi
TA No.253 of 2011
3
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer application under Section 24 CPC for a Hindu Marriage Act petition should be allowed when the defendent's petition was filed prior to the spouse's suit.
Whether the pending related maintenance and DOMDV proceedings at a distant location constitute sufficient ground for transfer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surajmukhi Vs. Chhotu RamDistinguished¶20
Surajmukhi Vs. Chhotu Ram, 2009(1) ICC 475
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babita
Chander Pal Sharma
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
