The High Court dismissed an application for transfer of a divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. While rejecting the transfer, the Court directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000 per visit for the applicant's travelling expenses.
Travelling expenses of Rs.2,000 per visit to be paid by the respondent to the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TA No.505 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TA No.505 of 2011
Date of decision : 11.01.2012
Neha Anand
...Applicant
Versus
Rahul Anand and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
TA No.505 of 2011
2
demand of Zen Car by the respondent.
3 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the complaint made by the applicant is subsequent to the date of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act. The alleged MLR has not been placed on record. He refers to Annexure R-2 and states that during the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Abohar on the directions of Superintendent of Police Abohar, no evidence regarding demand of Zen car in the dowry, as alleged in the application, is made out. It has been specifically noticed in the said report that the allegation of demand of dowry is on account of the grudge and has not been proved.
4 Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is dismissed. However, keeping in view that the applicant is without any resources, the respondent shall pay to the applicant the travelling expenses, which are quantified to Rs.2,000/per visit for attending the Court proceedings at Panchkula with regard to the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondenthusband.
11.01.2012 atulsethi
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for transfer of a divorce petition from Additional District Judge, Panchkula to Court of competent jurisdiction at Muktsar should be allowed.
Whether travelling expenses should be awarded to the applicant who is without resources.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Neha Anand
Rahul Anand
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
