Allowed¶30

Harpreet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2025TA/141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TA-141-2024; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Justice Archana Puri; decided 06.03.2025; transfer application; matrimonial dispute; divorce petition pending at Fatehgarh Sahib; Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC; convenience of wife; counter-blast; 100 kilometres; minor child custody; no source of earning; Barnala; Chief Judicial Magistrate; transfer allowed.

What did the court decide?

The transfer application was allowed; the divorce petition pending at Fatehgarh Sahib is to be transferred. The transferee court is named in a passage of the source that is corrupted/illegible. ¶30

Harpreet Kaur Vs Harpreet Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The transfer application was allowed; the divorce petition pending at Fatehgarh Sahib is to be transferred. The transferee court is named in a passage of the source that is corrupted/illegible.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce petition filed by the respondent, pending at Fatehgarh Sahib, ought to be transferred in view of the applicant-wife's convenience, her lack of independent means, her care of the minor child, and the distance of about 100 kilometres. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Preference is to be given to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes; accordingly, considering that the applicant has no source of earning, is taking care of the minor child, and the distance between the two places, the transfer application is allowed.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Courts or the rival parties cannot advise the applicant as to which process she should follow to assert her rights in the matrimonial dispute; it is for the party concerned to decide the kind of litigation to initiate.

¶24

Key takeaways

Solely the fact that the divorce petition was filed prior in time does not bar the applicant-wife from seeking transfer of the divorce petition; whether the Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition is a counter-blast is a matter for adjudication by the concerned Court where the litigation is pending.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh — T.A. No. 141 of 2024, decided 06.03.2025, Archana Puri, J. (Oral). Applicant-wife sought transfer of the respondent-husband's divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending at Fatehgarh Sahib; her own proceedings — a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition and a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. complaint for registration of a case under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 34 IPC — were pending at Barnala before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. She had no source of earning, was caring for the couple's about 1½-year-old son, and faced a commute of about 100 kilometres. Held: (i) courts and rival parties cannot advise a litigant as to which process she should follow to assert her rights; (ii) solely because the divorce petition was filed prior in time does not bar the wife's application for its transfer, and any 'counter-blast' allegation is for the court where the litigation is pending; (iii) preference is to be given to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications in matrimonial disputes. On that basis, considering her lack of earnings, care of the minor child and the inter-court distance, the transfer application was allowed. The transferee court is specified in a passage illegible in the source. Endorsed 'speaking/reasoned: Yes'; reportability printed ambiguously as 'Yes/No'.

¶1

��

¶2

�

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.115

¶5

TA-141-2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025

��

....Applicant

Versus

��

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dullat, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Harvinder Pal Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

�� !"!�#�� �� ��$%�� $��#��&�'��%��#�&��$�� '��'��(��)��

¶17

*��#��'�� %��

¶18

+��

¶19

*� is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 09.10.2021. One son born from the said wedlock, who is about 1½ years old, is in the care and custody of the applicant. On account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant has no source of earning and is totally Sonu dependent upon her parental family. As such, she has filed the petition 2025.03.06 16:43 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶20

��

¶21

�

¶22

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending in the Courts at Barnala and the respondent is making appearance in the same. Besides the same, she has also filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for registration of case under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 34 IPC, which is still pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant, to commute a distance of about 100 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition.

¶23

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply, submits that the applicant had already made appearance in the divorce petition, pending at Fatehgarh Sahib. Therefore, she can pursue the same and there is no necessity for filing separate application for seeking maintenance. The recourse could be by way of filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the pending litigation. As such, it is submitted that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is only a counter-blast to the divorce petition, filed by the respondent.

¶24

In view of the submissions aforesaid, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the Courts or the rival parties, cannot give an advise to the applicant, as to which process she should follow, to assert her rights, in the matrimonial dispute. It is for the party concerned, to take a decision, with regard to the kind of litigation, he/she wants to initiate. Even though, it is submitted that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is a counter-blast to the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same is a matter, to be adjudicated by the concerned Court, where the litigation is pending. Solely, the fact about the divorce petition having filed

¶25

prior in time, do not bar the applicant-wife from filing an application for

¶26

Sonu 2025.03.06 16:43 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

¶27

�

¶28

��

¶29

seeking transfer of the divorce petition.

¶30

Considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute, more particularly, considering the fact about the applicant having no source of earning and taking care of the minor child and also considering the distance between the two places, the transfer application is allowed and�� !"!�#�� �� ��$%�� $��#��'��&�'��%��#�&�� $#��'��(��)��,�� $��$%��&�'��%��#�&��$#�� -��#�)��

¶31

+��-��#�)��#�� &�'��%��#�)��./��#�� $��&�'��%��#�)��#��'��' ��%��

¶32

06.03.2025

¶33

(ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE

¶34

Himanshu

¶35

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

¶36

Sonu 2025.03.06 16:43 I agree to specified portions of this document P&HHC

Harpreet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurminder Sing Sohal Vs Daminder Kaur

Deepika Arora Vs Girish Arora

Karamjeet Kaur Vs Amanpreet Singh Oberoi

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Beer Wati Vs Man Singh

Arti Rani Vs Amit Kumar