Allowed

Babita v. Nareen Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012TA/423/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition from Nabha to Jagraon, citing the applicant wife's residence, lack of income, and childcare responsibilities, while relying on the Supreme Court observation favoring female applicants' convenience.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the petition titled 'Nareen Kumar Vs. Babita' from Additional Civil Judge, Nabha, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

Babita Vs Nareen Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.423 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.423 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision : 23.01.2012

Babita

...Applicant

Versus

Nareen Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: None for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, 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 ‘Nareen Kumar Vs. Babita’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabha, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶16

A perusal of the file reveals that the applicant filed two petitions against the respondent i.e. the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the other petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Jagraon. There are allegations of

¶17

TA No.423 of 2011

¶18

¶19

beatings, causing injuries to the applicant and not providing her any medical help. It is averred that on account of the injuries given by the respondent, the applicant lost her mental balance. The purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act at Nabha is only to harass the applicant. The applicant is presently residing with her parents at Raikot, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

¶22

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as under:-

¶23

“…we are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, conveniencewise, 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.”

¶24

The applicant-wife is residing at Raikot, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabha. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income

¶25

TA No.423 of 2011 3

¶26

and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor daughter, to attend the court proceedings at Nabha, which is at a distance of about 95 kms. from the place of her residence.

¶27

Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Jagraon and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent.

¶28

In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Nareen Kumar Vs. Babita’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nabha, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Nabha to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

¶29

The parties shall appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jagraon, on 03.03.2012 at 10.00 a.m.

¶30

23.01.2012

¶31

atulsethi

¶32

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶33

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

Babita v. Nareen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita v. Nareen 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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Vs Usha Rani and Ors.

Kiranpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh

Amita Kumari Vs Balwinder Kumar

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

Rajpal & Anr. Vs Biram Wati & Ors.

Daya Sharma Vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma