Allowed

Amita Kumari v. Balwinder Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jan 2012TA/607/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer application under Section 24 CPC, the High Court allowed the transfer of a Section 9 marriage petition from Ludhiana to Jalandhar. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines prioritizing the wife's convenience, the Court ordered record transmission to District Judge, Jalandhar, for further contra.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of petition to District Judge, Jalandhar; Record to be sent by trial court within three weeks.

Amita Kumari Vs Balwinder Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.607 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.607 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision : 19.01.2012

Amita Kumari

...Applicant

Versus

Balwinder Kumar

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. TPS Bhatti, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Respondent ex parte.

¶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 ‘Balwinder Kumar Vs. Amita Kumari’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Phillaur. The learned counsel further contends that after having been ousted from the matrimonial home, the applicant is residing at her parental home at

¶17

TA No.607 of 2011 2

¶18

Phillaur and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 9 of the Act at Ludhiana is only to harass the applicant.

¶19

Despite service, none has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶20

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

¶21

“…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.”

¶22

The applicant-wife is residing at Phillaur, District Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Ludhiana. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Ludhiana.

¶23

Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Phillaur and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the

¶24

TA No.607 of 2011

¶25

¶26

applicant-wife and against the respondent.

¶27

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

¶28

The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 25.02.2012 at 10.00 a.m.

¶29

19.01.2012 atulsethi

¶30

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶31

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

Amita Kumari v. Balwinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Kumari v. Balwinder 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

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.

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

Kiranpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Singh

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