Allowed

Sudesh Kumari v. Devender Bhukal

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Aug 2013TA/357/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition seeking transfer of a husband's suit for mandatory injunction from Dhuri to Jind. Considering the petitioner's residence, the distance involved, and three pending cases at Jind between the parties, the court held that the petitioner's convenience must be prioritized in such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of suit for mandatory injunction from Addl. Civil Judge, Dhuri to District Courts, Jind.

Sudesh Kumari Vs Devender Bhukal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2013.08.13 08:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

T.A. No.357 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

#1#

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

¶5

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

T.A. No.357 of 2012 (O&M)

¶7

Date of Decision: 6.8.2013

Sudesh Kumari

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Devender Bhukal

....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶14

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent-husband despite service.

¶15

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶16

Petitioner-wife is seeking the transfer of the suit for mandatory injunction (P.3) filed by the respondent-husband before the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri, District Sangrur to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jind.

¶17

It is averred that the petitioner was earlier married to the elder brother of the respondent on 28.12.2001, who was employed in the Indian Army and after his death, with the consent of the family, the petitioner was married, as per customs, to the respondent-Devender Bhukal in January 2002. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Shubham was born on 14.9.2004. It is further averred that the petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial home from Dhuri, District Sangrur in 2010, and since then she along with her minor son is residing with her parents at Jind.

¶18

It is stated that there are three other cases pending at Jind and

¶19

T.A. No.357 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

#2#

¶21

that the distance between two stations is 170 kms and therefore, it is extremely inconvenient for the petitioner to attend the courts at Dhuri whereas the respondent is already facing three cases at Jind.

¶22

None has appeared for the respondent to refute the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Keeping in view the fact that three cases are already pending between the parties at Jind and taking into account the distance between aforesaid two stations, 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.

¶24

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the suit filed by the respondent-husband titled Devinder Bhukal Vs. Sudesh Kumari pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri, District Sangrur is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Jind for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶25

August 06, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

¶26

T.A. No.357 of 2012 (O&M) #3#

Sudesh Kumari v. Devender Bhukal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumari v. Devender Bhukal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chairman, Panther Canteen, Amritsar &Anr Vs I.S. Chugh

Harjit Kaur Vs Arvinder Singh

Kiranjit Kaur Vs Amarjit Singh @ Kala

Bishop P.K.Samanta Rao & Ors. Vs Joshil Rai

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs Tejpal and Anr.

New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/S Khera Oil Tanker Service and Ors.