Dismissed

Nirmala v. Shri Ram

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2013TA/180/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In TA 180/2013, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana rejected the petitioner-wife's application to transfer divorce proceedings from Kurukshetra to Kaithal due to the short distance. However, the court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.300 as travelling expenses per attendance.

What did the court decide?

Transfer dismissed; respondent directed to pay Rs.300 travelling expenses per attendance to the wife.

Nirmala Vs Shri Ram — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.21 09:21I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 180/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 180/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.8.2013

¶5

Mrs. Nirmala

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Shri Ram

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Amit Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Parveen Kumar Gaur, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶14

Petitioner wife is seeking the transfer of divorce proceedings initiated by the husband from the court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra to a court at Kaithal.

¶15

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.6.2003 at Village Siwan, District Kaithal and parties cohabited as husband and wife in their matrimonial home at Village Diwana, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Out of their wedlock, a daughter was born on 14.2.2007 and a son was born on 7.11.2008. Due to matrimonial dispute between the parties, the petitioner-wife is alleged to be residing separately at her parental home in District Kaithal. Two minor children are admittedly residing with their father in District Kurukshetra.

¶16

The wife is stated to have initiated two proceedings against the husband at Kaithal namely (i) complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and (ii) petition for seeking custody of the

¶17

#2#

¶18

TA 180/2013 (O&M)

¶19

minor children under the Guardian and Wards Act.

¶20

The ground for transfer sought is that the wife is a poor lady and is unable to travel from Kaithal to Kurukshetra to pursue her case whereas it will be convenient for the husband to come to Kaithal, where he has already joined proceedings in aforesaid two cases.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the behaviour of the wife has throughout been irresponsible and he is otherwise looking after the children and ready to pay travelling expenses to the wife besides the maintenance being paid to her at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that no ground for transfer the aforesaid divorce petition is made out in view of the fact that the distance between Kaithal and Kurukshetra is only 48 kms and that too very well connected by road and train facilities. However, the respondent-husband shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.300/- as travelling expenses per attendance to the wife in the pending aforesaid divorce petition at Kurukshetra.

¶23

Dismissed with the aforesaid terms.

¶24

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶25

August 20, 2013 manoj

Nirmala v. Shri Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala v. Shri Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Nandan Vs Mehta Ram

Bhagwanti Devi and Ors. Vs Sarla Devi and Ors.

Bimal Mohan Joshi Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma

Mangal Singh Vs Darshan Singh & Anr.

Romi Vs Narinder Singh

Richa Vs Surender Kumar