Allowed

Nidhi Garg v. Sushil Kumar & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Dec 2013TA/320/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A transfer petition seeking to move a Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act case from Panchkula to Sirsa was filed by the wife. The court granted the transfer to District Mansa, Punjab, based on the mutual consent of both parties.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 13 of the Act titled Sushil Kumar Vs. Nidhi Garg and Anr. from the Courts at Panchkula is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Mansa (Punjab).

Nidhi Garg Vs Sushil Kumar & Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.21 13:19I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 320/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 320/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.12.2013

¶5

Nidhi Garg

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Sushil Kumar and Anr.

¶9

.............Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

None for respondent No.2.

¶14

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶15

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 Sushil Kumar Vs. Nidhi Garg and Anr. from the Courts at Panchkula to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Sirsa.

¶16

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6.12.2005 at Parwanoo, District Solan (HP) and out of the said wedlock a male child was born. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner alongwith minor child was turned out of the matrimonial home at Panchkula. Petitioner along with minor child is stated to be residing with her sister at Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

¶17

TA 320/2013 (O&M)

¶18

#2#

¶19

It is further averred that the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Courts at Panchkula.

¶20

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.1-husband, on instructions from his client, states that he has no objection if the aforesaid petition is transferred to District Mansa (Punjab).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has not objected to the aforesaid proposal.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid agreed stand, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled Sushil Kumar Vs. Nidhi Garg and Anr. from the Courts at Panchkula is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Mansa (Punjab) for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶23

December 18, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Nidhi Garg v. Sushil Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidhi Garg v. Sushil Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirti Kumar Sharma Vs Sita Devi and Anr.

M.S. Walia Vs Venus Cable Industries and Anr.

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Anaitulla and Ors.

Paramjit Kaur Vs Sukhjit Singh

Gurnam Singh Vs District Bar Association Panchkula and Ors.

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Bittu Singh and Others