Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preeti vs Dinesh Nara on 30 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
TA No.7 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.7 of 2012
Date of decision : 30.05.2012
Preeti
...Applicant
Versus
Dinesh Nara
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate
for the applicant.
Ms. Swati Batra, 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 'Dinesh Nara Vs. Preeti', filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Sonepat. The learned counsel further contends that criminal proceedings under Sections TA No.7 of 2012 2 406/420/354/506/34 IPC are also pending against the respondent at Sonepat. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat and the purpose of filing the petition under Section 13 of the Act is only to harass the applicant.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. 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, convenience- wise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown."
6. The applicant-wife is residing at Sonepat. The respondent- husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, which is pending before learned District Judge, Gurgaon. It would certainly be difficult for the wife, living at the mercy of her ailing father and having no source of income, to attend the court proceedings at Gurgaon.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant is a resident of Sonepat, and primarily, the convenience of the wife is to be seen, TA No.7 of 2012 3 therefore, this Court feels that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent.
8. In view of the above, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as 'Dinesh Vs. Preeti' is withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at Gurgaon to the learned District Judge, Sonepat, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat.
9. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sonepat, on 16.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m. 30.05.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No