CRM-M-4474-2014(O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4474-2014(O&M) Date of decision : 08.07.2014 Pawan Kumar Verma and others ..Petitioners Versus Anju Verma and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present: Mr.Sumit Jain, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for transfer of case No.29 dated 09.06.2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.and petition under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the respondents pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri to any place in Haryana but close to Patiala.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that Ramesh Chand Verma, father of respondent No.1, Rajiv Verma, her maternal uncle and Amit Verma & Pawan Kumar Verma sons of Rajiv Verma are practicing Advocates at District Courts, Jagadhri, therefore, the petitioners are suffering undue harassment due to pendency of proceedings in the Court at Jagadhri.
It is submitted that both the petitions may be transferred to any other Court in Davinder Kumar 2014.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4474-2014(O&M) 2 Haryana which is close to District Patiala as the petitioners are residents of Patiala.
Counsel for the respondents would contend that Anju Verma respondent No.1 is staying with her parents due to the circumstances created by her husband Pawan Kumar Verma.
Out of her wedlock with Pawan Kumar Verma, one son was born and the minor child namely Saksham Verma is residing with the respondent.
It is argued with vehemence that mere fact that some of the family members or close relatives of respondent No.1 are practicing at Jagadhri cannot form a justifiable reason to transfer the proceedings from the Court at Jagadhri to any other place in Haryana when on the contrary there are number of judgments wherein it has been held that convenience of the litigant lady is to be preferred while deciding petition for transfer.
It is further argued that respondent No.1 would be put to great inconvenience in case pending litigation is transferred from Jagadhri to some other station as she has responsibility to look after minor son born out of her wedlock with Pawan Kumar Verma.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It is appropriate to mention, at the outset, that invariably, the Courts take into consideration convenience of a lady litigant while deciding a petition for transfer.
In Neelam Kanwar versus Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2010(10) SCC589 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that we are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and fiRs.respondent is a male and therefore, the convenience-wise 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.
Davinder Kumar 2014.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-4474-2014(O&M) 3 The petitioners have not disputed that respondent No.1 has a social and moral obligation to look after minor Saksham Verma, son of the respondent and petitioner No.1 and transfer of the proceedings to a Court outside Jagadhri is bound to cause undue hardship and inconvenience for respondent No.1 Anju Verma.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the petition stands disposed of with the direction that both the petitions shall be dealt with by the same Court at Jagadhri and both the cases shall be fixed for the same date so that the petitioners do not suffer inconvenience of adjournment of the cases for different dates.
The Court concerned shall put its best efforts to dispose of the cases expeditiously.
This Court can fairly expect from the practicing relatives of respondent No.1 that they do not use their legal acumen in delaying the decision by the trial Court.
The District and Sessions Judge, Jagadhri is directed to ensure that both the cases are transferred to the same Court and he would also supervise progress in the proceedings.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE July 08, 2014.
Davinder Kumar Davinder Kumar 2014.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document