Allowed

Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika v. Lalit Miglani

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Oct 2013TA/686/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition by a wife seeking transfer of her husband’s Section 9 restitution for conjugal rights case from Kurukshetra to Karnal. Citing Sumita Singh, the Court held that in husband-initiated matrimonial proceedings, the wife’s convenience must be prioritized. The petition was allowed to ensure safety and logistical ease.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed in the Court of District Judge, Kurukshetra was allowed to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Karnal.

Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika Vs Lalit Miglani — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar 2013.10.03 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 686/2012 (O&M)

¶3

#1#

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

TA 686/2012 (O&M) Date of decision:1.10.2013

¶6

Smt. Sonia Chhabra

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Lalit Miglani

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. Pankaj Bali,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).

¶14

Petitioner wife is seeking the transfer of the petition filed by respondent husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”) for restitution of Conjugal Right, titled Lalit Miglani Vs. Smt. Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika from the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.

¶15

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.2.2012 at Karnal. Respondent-husband is stated to be a divorcee. After marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife at matrimonial home at Kurukshetra and no child was born out of the wedlock. Due to matrimonial dispute, petitioner-wife is stated to be residing separately since 2.7.2012 at her parental home at Karnal where she has filed two proceedings namely (i) FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC and (ii) petition under Section 12 of the Domestic

¶16

TA 686/2012 (O&M)

¶17

#2#

¶18

Violence Act.

¶19

Thereafter, as a counter blast, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra.

¶20

The ground for transfer is that the respondent-husband is notorious type of person and she apprehends danger at the hands of the respondent.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the respondent-husband wants to get his wife back and further taking into account the fact that two cases are already pending at Kurukshetra, 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 Lalit Miglani Vs. Smt. Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika from the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Karnal for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶23

October 01, 2013 manoj

¶24

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika v. Lalit Miglani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Chhabra @ Sarika v. Lalit Miglani

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

Parshotam Lal Vs Sanjeev Kumar etc.

(O&M)Raje and Ors. Vs Rajinder Kumar and Ors.

Paramjit Singh & Ors. Vs Megha Singh & Ors.

M/S V.S. Enterprises Vs M/S Gurnam Singh & Company

R.B.D.A.V. Senior Secondary Public School & Anr. Vs Balwinder Pal Singh and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Soni and Ors. Vs Sudesh Verma and Ors.