Allowed

Daminder Kaur v. Gurminder Singh Sohal

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2013TA/322/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer application filed by a wife seeking to move her pending divorce proceedings from Patiala to Ludhiana. Noting her lack of income and the distance, the court prioritized her convenience and ordered the transfer of the husband's Section 10 petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was ordered to be withdrawn from Patiala and transferred to the District Court at Ludhiana for disposal.

Daminder Kaur Vs Gurminder Singh Sohal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

TA 322/2013 (O&M)

¶3

#1#

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

TA 322/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.9.2013

¶6

Daminder Kaur

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Gurminder Singh Sohal

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. N.K. Wadhera,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent despite service.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶14

Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent husband under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”) titled Gurminder Singh Sohal Vs. Daminder Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

¶15

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.2.2012 at patiala. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner was turned out of the matrimonial home at Patiala in October 2012 and since then she is stated to be residing at her parental home at Ludhiana where she gave birth to a girl child on 20.1.2013.

¶16

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act, which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court

¶17

#2#

¶18

TA 322/2013 (O&M)

¶19

of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala.

¶20

It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no source of income and she alongwith her minor child 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 minor child and in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Patiala, which is about 90 kms away from Ludhiana.

¶21

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband despite service 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.

¶22

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”) titled Gurminder Singh Sohal Vs. Daminder Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Ludhiana for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶23

September 03, 2013 manoj

¶24

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Daminder Kaur v. Gurminder Singh Sohal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daminder Kaur v. Gurminder Singh Sohal

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

Gurmeet Singh Samran Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Seema Vs Jai Bhagwan

Raj Kumar Jain Vs Parkash Goyal

Ashok Kumar Vs Anil Kumar and Anr.

Daljit Singh Grewal Vs Ram Singh

Anupam Sharma Vs Sudarshan Sharma