Allowed

Anu Veram @ Eshita v. Chetan Verma

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2013TA/265/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, acting under Section 24 CrPC, allowed a transfer application. The Court shifted a Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act petition filed by the husband from Amloh to Panchkula to ensure the petitioner wife's convenience, noting her lack of independence and the distance involved.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Amloh District Court transferred to Panchkula District Court.

Anu Veram @ Eshita Vs Chetan Verma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.29 10:38I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 265/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 265/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.8.2013

¶5

Anu Verma

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Chetan Verma

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Navdeep Kaler,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”) for restitution of Conjugal Right, titled Chetan Verma Vs. Anu Verma @ Eshita from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula (Haryana).

¶14

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.2.2011 at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Parties cohabited as husband and wife at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. No child was born out of their wedlock. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner child was turned out of the matrimonial home at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib on 12.2.2013. Petitioner is stated to be residing at Panchkula

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 265/2013 (O&M)

¶17

where she has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶18

It is alleged that the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib .

¶19

It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her parents while the respondent is not paying even a single penny for the upkeep and maintenance of petitioner wife and in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, which is about 100 kms away from Panchkula.

¶20

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband to controvert the aforesaid facts.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the distance between aforesaid two stations as also the fact that one petition is already pending at Panchkula, 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.

¶22

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled Chetan Verma Vs. Anu Verma @ Eshita from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Panchkula for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶23

( JASWANT SINGH )

¶24

August 23, 2013 manoj

¶25

JUDGE

Anu Veram @ Eshita v. Chetan Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu Veram @ Eshita v. Chetan Verma

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

Harpal Singh Vs Ajaib Singh and Anr.

Satinder Rawat & Ors. Vs Pushpinder Singh Cheema

Mateshwar Dayal Vs Ram Phal

Attar Singh Thru His Gpa Rajendra Singh Vs Hari Krishan Kakar

Nafisa Bano and Ors. Vs Harcharan Singh and Anr.

Balbir Kaur Vs Sadhu Singh and Ors.