Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Babita vs Chander Pal Sharma on 5 October, 2011

Author: Jitendra Chauhan

Bench: Jitendra Chauhan

 TA No.253 of 2011                                   1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                    TA No.253 of 2011

                                           Date of decision : 05.10.2011

Babita
                                                         ...Applicant

                                Versus

Chander Pal Sharma

                                                         ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:    Sh. Vineet Sharma, Advocate,
            for the applicant.

            Sh. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate,
            for the respondent.


JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present application has been preferred by the applicant- wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as 'Chander Pal Sharma Vs. Smt. Babita', filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge- cum-Family Court, Faridabad, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3. The only ground for seeking transfer of the petition under TA No.253 of 2011 2 Section 13 of the Act is that the two petitions, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are pending before the competent Courts at Amritsar.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a photocopy of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, in which the date of institution of the HMA petition No.580 of 2010, is recorded as 4.8.2010. Therefore, it is evident that the petition filed by the respondent is prior in time and the petitions filed by the applicant are counter-blast thereto. In Surajmukhi Vs. Chhotu Ram, 2009(1) ICC 475, this Court has held as under:-

"4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no reason to direct transfer of the divorce petition from Sirsa to Hisar. The petition filed by the applicant-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted after the husband filed a divorce petition. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are on the verge of conclusion. The distance of 100 kms. is insufficient to direct transfer of the case from Sisra to Hisar...."

5. In this view of the matter, the present application is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.





05.10.2011                                 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
atulsethi                                        JUDGE
 TA No.253 of 2011                                           3

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No