Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpreet Kaur vs Sukhraj Singh on 11 July, 2011
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
TA No.319 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.319 of 2011
Date of decision : 11.07.2011
Sukhpreet Kaur
...Applicant
Versus
Sukhraj Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. R.K. Samyal, 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 'Sukhraj Singh Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur', filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. TA No.319 of 2011 2
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending adjudication at Faridkot. Criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, have also been initiated against the respondent and his family members at Faridkot.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Faridkot and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as under:-
"We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, for convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reason not to do so. No special reason is shown."
7. Smt. Sukhpreet Kaur, the applicant-wife, is residing at Faridkot. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Chandigarh. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her TA No.319 of 2011 3 parents and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Chandigarh, which is at a distance of about 250 kms. from the place of her residence. She also apprehends threat at the hands of the respondent and his family members.
8. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Faridkot and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, therefore, in my opinion, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent.
9. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as 'Sukhraj Singh Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur' is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Chandigarh, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Chandigarh to the learned District Judge, Faridkot, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.
10. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, on 12.08.2011.
11.07.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No