Dismissed

Sunita Saini v. Laxman Saini

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2012TA/412/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a transfer application filed under S. 24 CPC by a wife seeking to transfer her husband's S. 9 HMA petition from Faridabad to Gurgaon. Despite the wife's lack of resources, the distance was short, and the husband filed the petition regardless of her maintenance receipt.

What did the court decide?

Respondent husband to pay Rs. 1,000/- per visit as travelling expenses to applicant.

Sunita Saini Vs Laxman Saini — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.412 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.412 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision : 13.01.2012

Sunita Saini

...Applicant

Versus

Laxman Saini

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present application has been preferred by the applicantwife, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Laxman Saini Vs. Sunita Saini’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Faridabad, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurgaon.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicantwife is without any resources and is living at the mercy of her widowed mother at Faridabad. The two brothers of the applicant are stated to be residing separately. However, the distance between the two stations is not more than 40 kms.

¶17

¶18

TA No.412 of 2011

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband argued that the wife has not come to the Court with clean hands. She has suppressed the material fact of receiving a sum of `4,500/- p.m. as maintenance. He further argued that the husband is ready to rehabilitate her and therefore, he has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act.

¶20

I have gone through the pleadings of the parties.

¶21

In view of the peculiar facts involved in the present case, the instant transfer application is dismissed. However, the respondenthusband shall pay traveling expenses to the applicant from Faridabad to Gurgaon which is quantified as `1,000/- per visit with regard to the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent at Gurgaon.

¶22

13.01.2012

¶23

atulsethi

¶24

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶25

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No

Sunita Saini v. Laxman Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Saini v. Laxman Saini

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

Net Ram Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.

Anita Vs Avtar Singh

Kamlesh Patel Vs Avtar Singh

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shanti Kaur and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamal & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Satbir Singh and Another