Allowed

Ruby @ Ruby Biriwal v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2024TA/919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her domestic violence petition from Ludhiana Family Court to Yamuna Nagar, citing lack of income, dependence on parental family, 180 km distance, and another case already pending at Yamuna Nagar. Respondents did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte.

What did the court decide?

DV Act petition COMA/74504/2022 transferred from Family Court Ludhiana to competent court at Yamuna Nagar; parties to appear within one month.

Ruby @ Ruby Biriwal Vs Amit Kumar and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

TA-919-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.162

¶5

TA-919-2024

¶6

Date of Decision: 12.09.2024

¶7

RUBY @ RUBY BIRIWAL

¶8

....Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

AMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶13

Present:Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Purshotam Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶14

None for the respondent.

¶15

¶16

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶17

In pursuance of the notice issued, none has made appearance on behalf of the respondents. As such, they are proceeded against ex parte .

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant heard.

¶19

The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking transfer of the petition under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19(8), 20(d), 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. COMA/74504/2022, titled ‘Ruby Biriwal Vs. Amit Kumar’, filed by her in the Courts at Ludhiana, while she was staying in the matrimonial house and she seeks transfer of the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar.

¶20

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis had taken place on 27.11.2020. However, on

¶21

Anu 2024.09.12 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

¶23

TA-919-2024

¶24

account of matrimonial discord, they are residing separate. The applicant had filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while she was staying in the matrimonial house in Ludhiana. However, after she returned back to Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, she had filed CRM-M-31791-2024 and vide order dated 08.07.2024, copy whereof is Annexure P-2, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was transferred from Ludhiana to Yamuna Nagar.

¶25

Also, it is submitted that the applicant is a housewife and as such, is not having any source of earning. She is dependent upon her parental family. Ludhiana is at a distance of about 180 kilometres, from the place of her residence. In these circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant to defend the divorce petition, filed by the respondent-husband. Even, the applicant had filed the divorce petition, relating to which separate transfer application i.e. TA-802-2024 has been filed.

¶26

In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, considering the settled position of law about the weightage to be given to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to the matrimonial disputes and more particularly, considering one case to be already pending in the Courts at Yamuna Nagar, as well as the distance between the two places, ��is hereby accepted and the petition under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19(8), 20(d), 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. COMA/74504/2022, titled ‘Ruby Biriwal Vs. Amit Kumar’, filed by the applicant-wife, stands transferred from Family Court Ludhiana, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Yamuna Nagar. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be

¶27

Anu 2024.09.12 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶28

¶29

TA-919-2024

¶30

sent by Family Court Ludhiana, to the District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar.

¶31

Learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, shall assign the said petition to the Family Court Yamuna Nagar. Even, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court Yamuna Nagar, within a period of one month from today onwards.

¶32

12.09.2024 Himanshu

¶33

(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

Anu 2024.09.12 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ruby @ Ruby Biriwal v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby @ Ruby Biriwal v. Amit Kumar and Ors.

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

Simranjeet Vs Rajesh

Vijay Bharti Vs Jitender Kumar Deeka

Kavita Vs Gulshan Kumar

Pritam Singh through His Lrs Vs Gram Panchayat, Mangewal and Ors.

Ruby Vs Amit Kumar

Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sukhjinder Singh