Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia (Smt.) vs Rajnish Kumar Arora on 30 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: II(1998)DMC401
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer made by Sonia wife of Rajnish Arora is that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act title 'Rajnish Kumar Arora v. Sonia Arora', pending in the Court of Shri P.S. Bajaj, Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, be transferred to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.
2. Petitioner Sonia was married with Rajnish Kumar Arora, respondent, as per Hindu rites on 23.11.1991. Out of the wedlock, two children, one son and a daughter, were born on 16.10.1992 and 8.2.1994 respectively. Her husband, Rajnish Arora filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Ludhiana, alleging that she had left the matrimonial home without any cause on 28.6.1995. It is the common case of the parties that while petition under Section 9 of the Act was pending, there was some reconciliation between the parties and as a result of that, petitioner came to her matrimonial home and stayed there from 10.9.1995 to 5.1.1996. This has so been averred in para 4 of the application. It has also been averred that once again she was turned out from the matrimonial home alongwith children after being given serious beating;; and in fact the respondent tried to kill the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself and her two minor children and that application is pending in the Court of Shri B.S. Mangat, judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar. It has been averred that petitioner has no source of income and her father is a poor man doing private job, and is providing maintenance and shelter to the petitioner and her children with great difficulty. It has also been stated that petitioner is unable to visit Ludhiana to attend the hearing of the case alongwith the minor children, whereas respondent is running a chemist shop along with his brother at Ludhiana and his father is running business of tea merchant it has thus, been prayed that petition under Section 9 of the Act pending in the Court of Sh. P.S. Bajaj, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.
3. Written Statement has been filed by the respondent in which he has denied that he tried to kill the petitioner and she left the matrimonial home due to ill- treatment meted out at his hands. Counsel for the respondent for opposing the prayer made in the present petition, has contended that a sum of Rs. 3,000 / - has been awarded as litigation expenses and Rs. 600/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and that amount is sufficient for the petitioner to defend the petition filed by the respondent at Ludhiana. In this regard, he has placed on record order dated 29.1.1997 passed on the application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and taking into consideration the submissions made by Counsel for respondent, I am of the considered view that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act deserves to be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. Since the petitioner is to lookafter two minor children; one aged 5 years and another 2 1/2 years and her father is an employee in a private shop, it would not be possible for her to defend the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband. As the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending in the Court at Amritsar and respondent is appearing in that petition, no serious prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent if he also appears in his petition under Section 9 on it being transferred to that district.
5. Faced with this situation, Counsel for respondent by placing reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 714. contended that in such like circumstances, as have been pointed out by the petitioner in her application, the prayer of transferring the petition was declined by the Apex Court. I have carefully gone through the judgment and find that the fact in that case were totally different to what have been projected in this petition. In the case before the Apex Court, the husband was a medical practitioner and had to support his ailing mother. The Apex Court found that in case the petition is transferred to Gujarat, then his practice would suffer, besides the fact that he is to lookafter her ailing mother. In the present case, respondent is working in a chemist shop owned by his brother and thus, will have to problem to go to Amritsar. Accordingly, petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as Rajnish Kumar Arora v. Sonia Arora, pending in the Court of Shri P.S. Bajaj Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, shall stand transferred to the Court of District Judge, Amritsar who may keep the same with himself or entrust it to any other Court competent to try the same. Respondent shall be at liberty to move the Court at Amritsar for reduction of the amount of litigation expenses which have been fixed at Rs. 3,000/-.
6. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before District Judge, Amritsar on 4.3.1997. Meanwhile, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, shall send the file of the petition under Section 9 of the Act pending in his Court to the District Judge, Amritsar.
7. CM. stands disposed of accordingly.