Allowed

Manju Gulati v. Umesh Gulati @ Toni

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2012TA/620/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application under Section 24 CPC to transfer a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from District Judge, Yamunanagar, to Ludhiana. The transfer was based on the applicant-wife’s residence in Ludhiana, her vulnerability, and the minor children’s welfare.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act transferred from Court at Jagadhri to Court at Ludhiana.

Manju Gulati Vs Umesh Gulati @ Toni — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.620 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.620 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision : 11.01.2012

¶6

Manju Gulati and another

...Applicants

Versus

Umesh Gulati @ Toni

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. JS Jaidka, Advocate for the applicants.

¶13

None 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 ‘Umesh Gulati @ Toni Vs. Manju Gulati and another’, filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant No.1-wife has filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestice Violence Act, which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana. The learned counsel further contends that as a counterblast, a petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed by the respondent-husband

¶17

TA No.620 of 2011 2

¶18

against the applicants in the Court of learned District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, to harass the applicants. Application No.2, the father of application No.1, has been impleaded as respondent in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, only to harass him, who is neither necessary nor proper party.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants further contends that the applicant No.1 is residing at Ludhiana, at the mercy of her father, applicant No.2. They have also to support the two minor sons born out of the wedlock.

¶20

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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

¶23

under:-

¶24

“…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.”

¶25

The applicant-wife is residing at Ludhiana. The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Yamunanagar at

¶26

¶27

TA No.620 of 2011

¶28

Jagadhri (Haryana). It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her parents, having no source of income and saddled with the responsibility of raising her two minor sons, to attend the court proceedings at Jagadhri, which is at a distance of about 180 kms. from the place of her residence i.e. Ludhiana.

¶29

Considering the fact that the applicants are residents of Ludhiana 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. Moreover, the petition filed by the applicant-wife is prior in time.

¶30

In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as ‘Umesh Gulati @ Toni Vs. Manju Gulati and another’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 9 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Yamunanagar to the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶31

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

¶32

11.01.2012 atulsethi

¶33

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶34

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

Manju Gulati v. Umesh Gulati @ Toni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Gulati v. Umesh Gulati @ Toni

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

Jagir Kaur Vs Tejinder Pal Singh

Jagir Kaur Vs Tejinderpal Singh

Sukhchain Singh Vs State of Punjab

Neha Anand Vs Rahul Anand etc.

Net Ram Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.

Anita Vs Avtar Singh