Allowed

Shashi Bansal v. Sunil Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012TA/602/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed under Section 24 CPC an application for transferring matrimonial proceedings filed under Section 13(1) HMA from District Judge, Bathinda to Panchkula, considering the applicant-wife's residence, lack of income, and difficulty in attending distant court.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of petition titled 'Sunil Kumar Bansal versus Shashi Bansal' under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act from District Judge, Bathinda to the competent court at Panchkula.

Shashi Bansal Vs Sunil Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.602 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.602 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.1.2012

Shashi Bansal

....Applicant

Versus

Sunil Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.Aarti Gupta, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

Mr.Jitender Singh, Advocate for the respondent

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of the petition titled as 'Sunil Kumar Bansal versus Shashi Bansal', filed by the respondent-husband, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the court of learned District Judge, Bathinda to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶17

case file.

¶18

The perusal of the file reveals that the applicant, after having been ousted from her matrimonial home, is presently residing with her parents at Panchkula. There are averments of beatings and harassment of

¶19

TA No.602 of 2011 2

¶20

the applicant for dowry. The applicant has lodged an FIR No.178 dated 30.8.2011, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Chandimandir against the respondent and his family. The applicant is maintaining the child, born out of the wedlock.

¶21

Considering the facts that the applicant is presently residing at Panchkula; it would certainly be difficult for the wife, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her minor son, to attend the court proceedings at Bathinda, which is at a distance of 260 Kms. In the petition filed by the husband, primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen. In the present case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant and therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed.

¶22

In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed, petition under Section 13(1) of the Act titled as ‘Sunil Kumar Bansal versus Shashi Bansal' is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Bathinda, and is transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula. The complete record pertaining to the case in question shall be sent by the trial Court at Bathinda, to the learned District Judge, Panchkula, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The learned District Judge, Panchkula will either dispose it of himself or entrust it to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula.

¶23

The parties shall appear before the Court of District Judge, Panchkula, on 25.2.2012 at 10 AM.

¶24

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶25

18.01.2012 gsv

Shashi Bansal v. Sunil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bansal v. Sunil Kumar

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

Satish Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kusum Rani Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr.

Banarsi Dass & Others Vs Achhar Kumar & Another

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Krishna Devi and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.

Surinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.