Allowed

Pamita Devi v. Gulshan Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2013TA/418/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought transfer of her husband's child custody petition from Kurukshetra to Jalandhar. Relying on Section 9(1) of the Guardian and Wards Act regarding the child's residence, the court allowed the transfer application and ordered the withdrawal of the pending case in Kurukshetra.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the custody petition titled Gulshan Kumar Vs. Pamita Devi from Kurukshetra to District Courts, Jalandhar.

Pamita Devi Vs Gulshan Kumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.19 10:55I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 418/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 418/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2013

¶5

Pamita Devi

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Gulshan Kumar

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. H.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent despite service.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition for custody of minor daughter filed by respondent husband under Section 25 of Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 ( for short “the Act”) titled Gulshan Kumar Vs. Pamita Devi from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶14

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.12.2006 at Village Bari-khad, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra and out of the said wedlock a daughter was born on 2.12.2008. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner alongwith minor child was turned out of the matrimonial home at Kurukshetra. Petitioner along with minor children is stated to be residing separately at her parental home at Jalandhar where she is alleged to have filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C as also divorce proceedings.

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 418/2013 (O&M)

¶17

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under 25 of the Act, which is now pending in the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is extremely inconvenient for the petitioner to pursue the litigation at Kurukshetra, which is about 216 kms away from Jalandhar. He further relies on the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short “the Act”), which provide that the application in respect of the guardianship of the person of the minor has to be made before a court having jurisdiction, where the minor ordinarily resides.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

In the context of provisions of aforesaid Section 9(1) of the Act and that concededly the minor child is residing at Jalandhar and taking into account the fact that one case is already pending at Jalandhar, the present petition is allowed and the petition under Section 25 of the Act titled Gulshan Kumar Vs. Pamita Devi from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Jalandhar for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶21

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

¶22

December 13, 2013 manoj

Pamita Devi v. Gulshan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pamita Devi v. Gulshan Kumar

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

Shailza Vs Sunny Malhotra

Priyanka Arora Vs Vikram Arora

Priyanka Arora & Ors. Vs Vikram Arora

Seema Garg Vs Rajiv Garg

Shameena Vs Hasandin

Anita Vs Ram Pyari