Allowed

Meenakshi v. Sandeep Arya

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2012TA/30/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application for transfer of a pending Section 10 Hindu Marriage Act petition from Panchkula to Jalandhar. Citing the convenience of a female applicant and prior proceedings at Jalandhar, the court ordered the transfer and joint trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in Panchkula is transferred to Jalandhar for joint trial with the existing restitution claim.

Meenakshi Vs Sandeep Arya — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

T.A. No 30 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

T.A . No.30 of 2012 Date of decision: 4.4.2012

Meenakshi

...Applicant

Versus

Sandeep Arya ..Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶10

Present:Mr. Sarwan Singh, Advocate, with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate for the applicant.

¶11

Mr.S.S. Grewal, Advocate for Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶12

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of petition titled as Sandeep Arya Vs. Dr. Meenakshi under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Panchkula, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant-wife is a doctor and presently working with Guru Gobind Singh Medical College Faridkot. The respondent-husband was working with BSNL and has now been transferred from Panchkula to Himachal Pradesh. He further contends that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the applicantwife is also pending in the Court at Jalandhar. Therefore, he prays for transfer of petition from Panchkula to Jalandhar.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand,

¶16

-2-

¶17

T.A. No 30 of 2012

¶18

opposes the application for transfer and states that in case, the petition is transferred to Jalandhar, it would cause more hardship to the respondent than the applicant.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The applicant-wife is presently working at Faridkot. The applicant and respondent-husband are permanent resident of Jalandhar. There is a considerable distance between Panchkula and Jalandhar. Being a lady it will become difficult for her to defend the case at Panchkula. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-husband, who is presently posted in Himachal Pradesh, if the case stands transferred to Jalandhar. Thus, it is a strong circumtance in favour of the applicant-wife. The petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the applicant-wife is also pending at Jalandhar. Moreover, in a petition filed by the husband, the trial should be conducted at a place which causes least inconvenience to the wife.

¶21

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar V.

¶22

Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1)MLJ 509 129 has

¶23

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

T.A. No 30 of 2012 -3-

¶26

A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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 Sandeep Arya Vs. Dr. Meenakshi under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of District Judge, Panchkula, is withdrawn and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶28

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

¶29

In order to avoid conflict of judicial opinion, the petition filed by the applicant-wife pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar and the transferred petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, shall be tried and heard together by the same Court.

¶30

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge Jalandhar on 14.5.2012 at 10.a.m.

¶31

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶32

4.4.2012 aarti

Meenakshi v. Sandeep Arya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi v. Sandeep Arya

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

(O&M) State of Punjab Vs Amar Kaur and Ors.

Piyush Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Ishwar Vs Mange Ram @ Mange and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kavita and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kavita and Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bishamber Dyal and Ors.