Judgment:
T.A.No.396 of 2012 (O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.396 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:
26. 3.2013 Mamta .....Petitioner(s) Versus Dhiraj Kumar ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.J.S.Lalli, Advocate for the respondent.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short “the Act”.) for restitution of Conjugal Right, titled Dhiraj Kumar versus Mamta from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.
It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.4.2009 at Jalandhar.
The parties cohabited as husband and wife at matrimonial home at Ludhiana and out of the said wedlock a female child was born on 29.6.2010.
Due to matrimonial dispute, the petitioner-wife along with minot child is stated to be residing separately since 26.3.2012 at her parental house at Jalandhar.
Petitioner-wife has filed two cases namely (i) a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and (ii) complaint under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, which are pending in the courts at Jalandhar.
Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Ludhiana.
Mediation proceedings are stated to have failed.
It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no T.A.No.396 of 2012 (O&M) #2# source of income and she alongwith her minot child is fully dependent upon her parents.
Even despite the orders passed by the Court granting maintenance,the respondent is not paying even a single penny for the upkeep and maintenance of petitioner wife and minot child.
It is further stated that the aged parents are not in a position to accompany the petitioner-wife to pursue the cases and in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings along with the minot child initiated by the respondent husband at Ludhiana, which is about 60 kms away from Jalandhar.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that two cases are already pending at Jalandhar, 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 Act for restitution of Conjugal Right, titled Dhiraj Kumar versus Mamta from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division).Ludhiana is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Jalandhar for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.
March 26, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manot JUDGE