Allowed

Neelam v. Vinod Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2013TA/435/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer application under Section 24 CPC, the High Court allowed the wife's petition to transfer her husband's Section 9 restitution petition from Rohtak to Gurgaon. The Court held the grounds sufficient for transfer, prioritizing the wife's convenience as along with her pending litigation in Gurgaon and near her residence.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 9 of the Act titled Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Neelam from Rohtak is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Gurgaon.

Neelam Vs Vinod Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

TA 435/2013 (O&M)

¶2

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.12 10:25I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 435/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2013

¶5

Smt. Neelam

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Vinod Kumar

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

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 Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Neelam from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurgaon.

¶14

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.12.2010. No child was born out of the said wedlock. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner was turned out of the matrimonial home at Rohtak on 06.04.2012. Petitioner is stated to be now residing separately at her parental home at Gurgaon where she has already lodged an FIR under Sections 406/498-A/323/506 IPC.

¶15

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of

¶16

#2#

¶17

TA 435/2013 (O&M)

¶18

learned District Judge, Rohtak.

¶19

It is averred that the petitioner wife 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 in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Rohtak, which is about 80 kms away from Gurgaon.

¶20

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent-husband to controvert the aforesaid facts.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the fact that one case is already pending at Gurgaon, 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 9 of the Act titled Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Neelam from the Court of learned District Judge, Rohtak is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Gurgaon for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶23

December 10, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Neelam v. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam v. Vinod 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

Jatinder Singh & Ors. Vs Sher Singh & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Mohan Singh & Ors.

Kailash Chand Vs Alka Kanodia & Ors.

Komal Sondhi Vs Manu Sondhi

Jyoti Kumari Vs Rashpal Singh

Ravinder Kaur @ Renu Vs Paramjit Singh and Ors.