TA No.257 of 2012(O&M) [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA No.257 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision:
18. 12.2012 Usha alias Mansi w/o Amrish Kumar d/o Ramdhan Sharma, resident of H.No.459/6, Sudhir Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat Distt.
Panipat (Haryana)..Petitioner Versus Amrish Kumar son of Sh.
Mohan Lal, r/o H.No.2061, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN Present:Mr.Wazir Singh, Advocate for Mr.Karan Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate, for the respondent.
***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not?.
NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
NO K.
KANNAN, J.
(Oral) 1.
The petition for transfer is sought by the wife from the Court at Chandigarh to Panipat where she resides, on a plea that she is not well provided for and she cannot go to a far place at Chandigarh to conduct a case.
It is stated in response by the respondent/husband that he is maintaining the children, who are aged 5 years and 3 years who are in his custody and he will be greatly inconvenienced if he should go Panipat for every hearing when he is already made to face three TA No.257 of 2012(O&M) [2].other proceedings initiated by the wife against him.
(i) a petition for maintenance; (ii) a complaint for offence under Section 498-A IPC; and (iii) a complaint for alleged offence under the Protection of Women against the Domestic Violence Act.
It is also contended that the petitioner is well supported by his own brother, which is an Advocate.”
2. Normally, it should be only appropriate that if there are several other cases pending in another jurisdiction that one more petition filed in matrimonial jurisdiction could go in the same place where the cases are pending.
In my view, the exceptional situation is that, he is supporting the children who are with him and he has also provided for interim maintenance @ `5,000/- to the wife.
The wife cannot plea a total indigence to come to Court at Chandigarh to contest the case.
She has lesser inconvenience than the inconvenience of the husband may have subject himself if he has to attend the proceedings at Panipat when he has still a young child aged 3 years in his custody.”
3. The only benefit which I think the wife must have would be to secure a transport expense from Panipat to Chandigarh apart from the interim maintenance which she has already secured and this amount I will quantify at `500/- to be paid at every hearing when the wife turns up in Court.
The trial Judge shall ensure that the amount is paid before the trial TA No.257 of 2012(O&M) [3].commences before the trial proceeds at every hearing.
The counsel for the petitioner states that litigation expenses has not been provided.
It will be open to the petitioner to apply for the litigation expenses before the Court and the Court shall pass an order before the commencement of trial.”
4. The application for transfer is dismissed with the above observations.
18th December, 2012 ( K.
KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE