Allowed

Romi v. Narinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2013TA/699/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a transfer application under Section 24 CPC, the High Court allowed the transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights petition from Ludhiana to Gurdaspur. Considering the wife's residence, lack of income, and distance, the court held her convenience was paramount in husband-initiated matrimonial suits.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; pending petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act transferred from Civil Judge, Ludhiana to District Court, Gurdaspur.

Romi Vs Narinder Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.08.21 09:22I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶2

TA 699/2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA 699/2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.8.2013

¶5

Romi

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Narinder Singh

¶9

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

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, 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 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur.

¶14

It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6.4.2000 at Village Pandori Bainsan and out of the said wedlock, four children were born. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner was turned out of the matrimonial home at Ludhiana. Petitioner is stated to be residing separately at her parental home at Gurdaspur, where she has filed two proceedings, namely (i) petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and (ii) petition under Section 13 of the Act.

¶15

#2#

¶16

TA 699/2012 (O&M)

¶17

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana.

¶18

It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no source of income and she 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 Ludhiana, which is about 150 kms away from Gurdaspur.

¶19

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

¶20

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 9 of the Act from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Gurdaspur for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

¶21

August 20, 2013 manoj

¶22

( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE

Romi v. Narinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romi v. Narinder Singh

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

Rama Nandan Vs Mehta Ram

Bhagwanti Devi and Ors. Vs Sarla Devi and Ors.

Bimal Mohan Joshi Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma

Mangal Singh Vs Darshan Singh & Anr.

Richa Vs Surender Kumar

Nirmala Vs Shri Ram