Allowed

Sushila v. Parveen Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Aug 2013TA/122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife filed a transfer application under Section 24 CPC to move a pending Section 13 matrimonial petition from Patala to Sonepat for convenience due to distance and lack of income, leading to an ex-parte order allowing the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The transfer petition is allowed; the Section 13 petition filed by the respondent is ordered withdrawn from the Patiala court and transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Sonepat.

Sushila Vs Parveen Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.09.06 09:37I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 122/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 122/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.8.2013

¶5

Sushila

¶6

.............Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Parveen Kumar

¶9

.............Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Ashwani Gaur,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent despite service.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”) titled Parveen Kumar Vs. Sushila from the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat.

¶14

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 4.12.1998 at Village Jatheri, Tehsil and District Sonepat and out of the said wedlock two children were born. Due to matrimonial dispute and also the fact that the respondent-husband is involved in many criminal cases, he (respondent) has abandoned her wife and minor children without any sufficient cause. Petitioner along with minor children is stated to be residing with her parents in law at Village Rajpur, District Sonepat.

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 122/2013 (O&M)

¶17

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala.

¶18

It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife has has no source of income while the respondent is not paying even a single penny for the upkeep and maintenance of petitioner wife and minor children and in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Patiala, which is about 240 kms away from Sonepat.

¶19

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband despite being served to controvert the aforesaid facts. Thus, I find that the grounds set out in the petition are sufficient to allow the petition as it is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband against wife, convenience of wife must be looked at. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another , AIR 2002 SC 396.

¶20

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled Parveen Kumar Vs. Sushila from the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Sonepat for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶21

August 26, 2013 manoj

¶22

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Sushila v. Parveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila v. Parveen 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

Attar Singh Thru His Gpa Rajendra Singh Vs Hari Krishan Kakar

Nafisa Bano and Ors. Vs Harcharan Singh and Anr.

Anu Veram @ Eshita Vs Chetan Verma

Balbir Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh and Ors.

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs Roshan Lal M.T.O.

Amanpreet Kaur Vs Satwinder Singh