Allowed

Harpreet Thakur v. Amit Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2013TA/377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer application under Section 24 CPC was allowed. The High Court ordered that the restitution petition filed by the husband in Rupnagar to be withdrawn and transferred to Patiala. The decision emphasized that in husband-initiated matrimonial proceedings, the wife's convenience must be prioritized.

What did the court decide?

The petition for restitution of conjugal rights pending in Rupnagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Court, Patiala for disposal from the stage of withdrawal.

Harpreet Thakur Vs Amit Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2013.12.19 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 377/2013 (O&M)

¶3

#1#

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

TA 377/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2013

¶6

Harpreet Thakur

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Amit Kumar

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Teena Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶14

Reply on behalf of the respondent-husband filed in court today, which is taken on record.

¶15

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 Amit Kumar Vs. Harpreet Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala.

¶16

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.4.2007 at Patiala and out of the said wedlock a male child was born on 27.2.2009. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner alongwith minor child was turned out of the matrimonial home at Ropar on 6.2.2013. Petitioner along with minor child is stated

¶17

TA 377/2013 (O&M)

¶18

#2#

¶19

to be now residing at her parental home at Patiala where she has already filed two proceedings, namely (i) petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and (ii) complaint to the SHO, P.S Tripuri, District Patiala.

¶20

Thereafter, 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), Rupnagar.

¶21

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 Rupnagar, which is about 80 kms away from Patiala.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that two proceedings are already pending at Patiala, 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.

¶23

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled Amit Kumar Vs. Harpreet Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Patiala for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶24

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶25

December 16, 2013 manoj

Harpreet Thakur v. Amit Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Thakur v. Amit Kumar

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

Pb State Cooperative Milk Producers Fed Ltd. Vs Manish Chugh

Pankaj Deol Vs Kawaljit Singh

Deepti Vs Mukesh Kaushal

Ishar Kaur Vs Lakhbir Singh and Anr.

Poonam Sharma Vs Anupam Sharma

Kavita Vs Banty Sharma