Allowed

Manpreet Kaur v. Kulbir Singh @ Sunny

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2012TA/160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for transfer of a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition from Mohali to Ludhiana. Citing Supreme Court precedents regarding women's convenience, the Court noted the applicant's residence with aged parents, lack of income, and prior residence in Ludhiana to order the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The pending petition titled Kulbir Singh Vs. Manpreet Kaur under Section 9 HMA in Mohali was withdrawn and transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

Manpreet Kaur Vs Kulbir Singh @ Sunny — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

T.A. No 160 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: 31.5.2012

¶5

Manpreet Kaur ...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Kulbir Singh alias Sunny .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶9

Present: - Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

None for the respondent.

¶11

JITENDRA CHAUHAN J.(ORAL):

¶12

Despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent.

¶13

Proceeded ex-parte.

¶14

The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the

¶15

Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the petition titled as Kulbir Singh Vs. Manpreet Kaur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge Mohali to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicantwife after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is residing with her parents at their mercy. She has no source of income. He further contends that the complaint under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the applicant-wife against her husband is prior in time. The parents of the applicant are old, as such they cannot accompany her to attend Court proceedings at Mohali which is about 100 kilometers away from Ludhiana.

¶17

T.A. No 160 of 2012

¶18

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

¶19

There is considerable distance between Ludhiana and Mohali. The applicant is residing with her aged parents at Ludhiana and she is having no source of income. Moreover, the complaint under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the applicant-wife against the respondenthusband at Ludhiana is prior in time.

¶20

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

¶21

" ...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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Keeping in view the above, the present application is allowed. The petition titled as Kulbir Singh Vs. Manpreet Kaur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge Mohali, is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶25

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

¶26

T.A. No 160 of 2012

¶27

-3-

¶28

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge Ludhiana on 16.7.2012 at 10.a.m.

¶29

31.5.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) aarti JUDGE

Manpreet Kaur v. Kulbir Singh @ Sunny

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Kaur v. Kulbir Singh @ Sunny

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

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka Vs Naresh Kumar