Skip to content


Kiran Saini Vs. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantKiran Saini
Excerpt:
.....v. vijender saini .............respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice jaswant singh present:- mr.chirag wadhwa,advocate for the petitioner. mr.kuldip khandelwal,advocate for the respondent. jaswant singh,j(oral).the wife is seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent husband under section 9 of the hindu marriage act,1955 (for short the act) for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned family court at hisar to a court of competent jurisdiction at karnal. it is submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 8.11.2008 at karnal and a son out of the wedlock was born on 11.10.2010. due to matrimonial dispute the wife is staying at her parental home at karnal alongwith her minot son where she has already initiated three proceedings.....
Judgment:

TA 600/2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA 600/2012 Date of decision:08/02/2013 Kiran Saini .............Petitioner v.

Vijender Saini .............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Chirag Wadhwa,Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Kuldip Khandelwal,Advocate for the respondent.

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral).The wife is seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Family Court at Hisar to a court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.

It is submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 8.11.2008 at Karnal and a son out of the wedlock was born on 11.10.2010.

Due to matrimonial dispute the wife is staying at her parental home at Karnal alongwith her minot son where she has already initiated three proceedings against the husband, namely, (i) under Section 125 Cr.PC for maintenance, (ii) FIR No.321 dated TA 600/201”

24. 4.2012 under Sections 406,498-A,323,506 and 34 IPC,PS Karnal City and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.

It is stated that it is extremely inconvenient for the petitioner wife to travel a distance of 180 kilometers alongwith minot son to attend the Courts at Hisar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Though the learned counsel for the respondent husband has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the present petition, however, I find that the grounds set out in the petition are sufficient to allow the petition as it is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband against wife, convenience of wife must be looked at.

Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Sumita Singh v.

Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 200.SC 396.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 titled as Vijender Saini v.

Kiran Saini pending in the Court of Distt.Judge (Family Court)Hisar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.

08.02.2013.

(Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //