Allowed

Mandeep Kaur v. Parvinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2012TA/366/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer application, the court allowed the move to transfer a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition from Rupnagar to Ludhiana, citing the wife's residence, financial constraints, and safety concerns due to torture allegations. The record was ordered transmitted to the District Judge, Ludhiana.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act transferred from Rupnagar to Ludhiana; record to be sent by trial court.

Mandeep Kaur Vs Parvinder Singh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

TA No.366 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.366 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.1.2012

Mandeep Kaur

....Applicant

Versus

Parvinder Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: None for the applicant

¶12

Mr.Joginder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present application has been preferred by the applicantwife, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of the petition titled as ‘Parvinder Singh vs. Mandeep Kaur’, filed by the respondent-husband, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (for short `the Act') from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the case file.

¶17

From the perusal of the case file, it is made out that the applicant, after having been turned out from her matrimonial home, is presently residing with her parents at village Bhaini Bharinga, Tehsil Rai

¶18

TA No.366 of 2011 2

¶19

Kot, District Ludhiana. There are averments of torture, beatings and humiliation of the applicant by the respondent and his family for brining less dowry. The applicant has filed a complaint in the Women Cell at Ludhiana. As a counter- blast, the respondent-husband has filed the petition Annexure P-1 at Ropar. The applicant has no source of income.

¶20

In these circumstances, it would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Ropar, which is at a distance of 100 Kms. In the petition filed by the husband, primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen. Therefore, in the present case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-husband.

¶21

In view of the above, the instant application is allowed, petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as “Parvinder Singh vs. Mandeep Kaur ” is withdrawn from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cumAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The complete record pertaining to the case in question shall be sent by the trial court at Rupnagar to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The learned District Judge, Ludhiana will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon.

¶22

The parties shall appear before the court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana on 3.3.2012 at 10 AM.

¶23

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶24

24.01.2012 gsv

Mandeep Kaur v. Parvinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Kaur v. Parvinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Rani and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors.

Babita Vs Nareen Kumar

Geeta Devi & Ors. Vs Rihyasah Khan & Ors.

Icici Lombard Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Singh & Ors.

Rita & Another Vs Rihayash Khan & Others