Allowed

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka v. Naresh Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2012TA/119/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application for transfer of a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition from Abohar to Hisar, considering the applicant wife's residence, her ailing condition, and inconvenience of traversing a long distance for legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Section 9 petition pending at Abohar was withdrawn from that court and transferred to the competent court at Hisar.

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka Vs Naresh Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

T.A. No 119 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

T.A. No 119 of 2012 Date of Decision: 31.5.2012

Saroj Bala

...Applicant

Versus

Naresh Kumar

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: - Mr. V.S. Kajla, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

None for the respondent.

¶13

JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):

¶14

Despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent.

¶15

Proceeded ex-parte.

¶16

The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the

¶17

Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the petition titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. Priyanka @ Saroj Bala under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Abohar, District Fazilka to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicantwife after having been ousted from her matrimonial home is residing with her ailing mother. He further contends that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and complaint under Sections 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC filed by the applicant-wife against respondent-husband at Hisar are prior in time. He submits that there is distance of 160 kilometers from Hisar to Abhoar, where the respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and being a lady it is difficult for the applicant to attend the Court proceedings at Abohar.

¶19

-2-

¶20

T.A. No 119 of 2012

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and peruse the case file.

¶22

There is considerable distance between Hisar and Abohar. The applicant is residing with her ailing mother. Moreover, the petition filed by the applicant-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C and complaint under Sections 498A/406/323/506/34 IPC against the respondent-husband at Hisar are prior in time.

¶23

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar V. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1)MLJ 509 129 has observed as under:-

¶24

" ...we are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and therefore, convenience-wise, 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 such special reason is shown.

¶25

The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶26

case Sumita Singh Vs.. Kumar Sanjay and another 2002 AIR (SC) 396

¶27

Keeping in view the above, the present application is allowed. The petition titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. Priyanka @ Saroj Bala under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Abohar, District Fazilka is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar.

¶28

Learned trial Court at Abohar, District Fazilka shall send the case file to the District Judge Hisar forthwith, who will either dispose it of himself or entrust to any other Court of competent jurisdiction for disposal according to law.

¶29

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the

¶30

T.A. No 119 of 2012 -3-

¶31

District Judge Hisar on 16.7.2012 at 10.a.m.

¶32

31.5.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka v. Naresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka v. Naresh 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

Veena Rani Vs Krishna Devi & Ors.

Veena Rani Vs Hiramuni & Ors.

Lakhi Ram and Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar @ Shilu and Ors.

Anita & Ors. Vs Prem Singh Negi & Ors.

Surinder Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh Palia

Manpreet Kaur Vs Kulbir Singh @ Sunny