Allowed

Parampreet Kaur v. Malkeet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2013TA/457/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer application to move a pending restitution of conjugal rights petition from Gidderbaha to Ropar based on the mutual agreement of the parties, citing convenience and the nature of reciprocal allegations.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights from Addl. Civil Judge, Gidderbaha to District Court, Ropar.

Parampreet Kaur Vs Malkeet Singh — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

TA 457/2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 457/2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.12.2013

¶5

Parampreet Kaur

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Malkeet Singh

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate along with the respondent.

¶12

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶13

Petitioner-alleged 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 Malkeet Singh Vs. Parampreet Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gidderbaha to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mohali.

¶14

It is stated that the petitioner did not marry with the respondent and that she never even resided with him for a single day. It is further stated that the respondent is a drug addict and the petitioner has no relation with him. Petitioner is stated to be residing with her aged parents at Mattour, District Mohali, where she has lodged an FIR under Sections 354-A/506 IPC, P.S City Mattour against the respondent.

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 457/2013 (O&M)

¶17

It is averred that as a counter blast and in order to harass the petitioner, the respondent has 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), Gidderbaha.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the nature of allegations levelled against each other, and the threat perception of both the sides, it is deemed expedient to order the transfer of the aforesaid petition to a place, which would be convenient to both the parties.

¶19

At the time of hearing, it is agreed that the courts at Ropar would be convenient for both of the parties.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid agreed stand, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 ( for short “the Act”) for restitution of Conjugal Right, titled Malkeet Singh Vs. Parampreet Kaur from the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gidderbaha is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Ropar for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶21

December 06, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE

Parampreet Kaur v. Malkeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parampreet Kaur v. Malkeet Singh

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

Raj Kumar Vs Behari Lal

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs Maha Singh and Ors.

Veerpal Kaur Vs Balwinder Pal

Garib Dass Vs Harshi Ram & Anr.

Satnam Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh & Ors.

Bhagwanti and Ors. Vs Shanti Devi and Ors.