Transfer application to move matrimonial petition from Karnal to Panchkula was dismissed. The court held the prior police complaint did not establish danger arising from the husband's petition, dismissing the plea.
Application for transfer of matrimonial lis from Karnal to Panchkula dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2014.01.02 12:58I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
TA No.721 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TA No.721 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2013
Deepti
....Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kaushal
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
JASWANT SINGH, J
Petitioner by way of filing the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC, is seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 12 (1)(a) or in the alternative 13 (1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) by the respondent from the courts at Karnal to a court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula.
It is alleged that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 20.4.2008 at Jind. It is further alleged that that the petitioner is apprehending danger to her life at the hands of respondent-husband and his family members while defending the aforesaid petition filed by the respondent-husband before the Family Court at Karnal. It is further alleged that the petitioner is residing at her parental home at Panchkula and it would be a great hardship to attend the court at Karnal.
It is alleged that on 16.11.2012, father of the petitioner along with one Chander Sharma had gone to Karnal to attend the date of hearing and the respondent along with some other persons
#2#
TA No.721 of 2012(O&M)
misbehaved with them and a complaint (P.3) in this regard was made to Chowki Incharge, Police Post, Sector 13, Karnal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the paper book, this Court is not persuaded with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner in view of the fact that petition for annulment of marriage was filed by the respondent-husband on 14.12.2012 (P.2) before matrimonial court at Karnal whereas the alleged complaint (P.3) is regarding an occurrence dated 4.5.2012 and received by the Incharge police post on 5.5.2012 i.e prior to filing of the petition. Thus, it has no bearing to substantiate the plea of danger of her life after filing of the petition filed by the respondent-husband although this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the contents of the said complaint but for the purpose of adjudication of the present controversy, the said complaint cannot be construed as a ground to transfer the matrimonial lis pending at Karnal to Panchkula.
Moreover, it is a civil dispute and the petitioner is not expected to be present in person on each and every date of hearing and her counsel will always be there to attend the court on her behalf before the Family Court at Karnal until and unless she is directed to be present in person.
No ground is made out to entertain the present petition.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
December 13, 2013 manoj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to transfer of the matrimonial petition from Karnal to Panchkula citing apprehension of danger.
Whether the alleged prior police complaint substantiates a ground for transfer after the filing of the husband's petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepti
Mukesh Kaushal
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
