Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harleen Sidhu vs Ravi Preet Singh Sidhu on 15 October, 2009
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009
Date of Decision: 15.10.2009
Harleen Sidhu ......Petitioner
Versus
Ravi Preet Singh Sidhu .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi and Shri Kanwal Goyal, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Shri Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The petitioner has sought transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [ for short `the Act'] and pending in the Court learned District Judge, Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kapurthala.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.3.2008 at Kapurthala, according to Sikh rites. Since the dispute arose Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) [2] between the parties, the respondent sought dissolution of marriage by filing the present petition on 23.3.2009.
The petitioner filed the present petition on 8.5.2009. In para No. 3 of the petition, it has been pleaded that the respondent has deliberately filed the divorce petition at Chandigarh to harass the petitioner. The respondent has links with a senior cabinet minister of the Punjab and high ups in Police Department and would implicate the members of the petitioner's family in false criminal cases. In para No. 6, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner finds herself in an eminent danger which is apparent from the fact that respondent, having relations with a Cabinet Minister of Punjab and other high-ups in the police hierarchy, exerted pressure on the investigating team to stall the investigation in a case registered under Section 307, 406, 498-A read with Section 34 IPC at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has also pleaded that in matrimonial disputes, convenience of the woman has to be accorded a priority. The petitioner is unemployed, who after being thrown out by her in-laws is at the mercy of her parents for her daily expenses. In the stressed and harassed situation, the petitioner has to travel from Kapurthala to attend the proceedings of Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner has raised apprehension regarding her safety and security at Chandigarh. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner has sought transfer of the petition from Chandigarh to Kapurthala.
In reply filed by the respondent, the respondent has denied Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) [3] the allegations of harassment of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent. It is asserted that a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Punjab, is extremely close friend /associate of the petitioner's family. Similarly, Senior Superintendent of Police is also a very close associate of the petitioner and her family. It is also pleaded that the petitioner and her family members have got criminal track record and good contacts with the local police as well as with the other persons of suspicious character. The petitioner and her family members can stoop to any extent for causing bodily harm to the respondent and his family members. It is also pointed out that the petitioner and her family members are having a palatial house No. 50 at Sukhna Enclave, abutting Chandigarh and that the plea for transfer lacks bona-fide. It is thus pleaded that the petition for transfer has been filed with ulterior motive.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after the insertion of Section (iii a) in Section 19 of the Act with effect from 23.12.2003, an option has been given to the wife to initiate divorce proceedings in the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction, the wife is residing at the time of presentation of the divorce petition. Therefore, in terms of the intention of the legislature, the divorce petition should be entertained and tried by a Court where the wife is residing as such provisions have been inserted to avoid harassment and difficulty to the woman and for her convenience. Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) [4]
Though the Courts at Chandigarh as also at Kapurthala, have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, in view of the fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Kapurthala and the parties last resided at Chandigarh, but the respondent has the dominus- litus in respect of choice of forum to initiate the proceedings. Therefore, mere fact that the respondent has chosen to file petition at Chandigarh, cannot be seen with any suspicion.
The object of insertion of the aforesaid provisions in the Act, is to provide an opportunity to the wife, to initiate the divorce proceedings. Such provisions do not restrict the jurisdiction of the Court so as to construe that petition in question can only be filed before the Court, where the wife resides. Therefore, reliance of the counsel for the petitioner on Clause (iii a) of Section 13 of the Act, is not tenable to construe that it is the Kapurthala Court alone, which has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition for dissolution of marriage.
It may be mentioned here that earlier, in view of the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the parties, it was suggested to the parties to agree for transfer of the case outside the Punjab. However, learned counsel for the petitioner then made a statement to withdraw the present petition. After some time, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that she would not like to withdraw this petition and orders on merits be passed.
The petitioner has levelled allegations that the respondent is Transfer Application No. 174 of 2009 (O&M) [5] having relations with the cabinet minister of Punjab and other high-ups in the police hierarchy. On the other hand, the respondent has also levelled allegations that the petitioner and her family members have relations with the police officials.
In this view of the matter, to instill confidence in the parties in the justice dispensation system and further keeping in view that some of the witnesses of the parties are either from Panchkula or from Mohali, I do not find any reason to transfer the petition under Section 13 of the Act, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, when the family of the petitioner has a house near Chandigarh as well.
Dismissed.
[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 15-10-2009 ds