Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Lata Vs. Brijendra Kumar and ors.

Lata vs Brijendra Kumar and ors.

Disposition Application allowed Court Uttaranchal Decided Nov 29, 2004
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/513910

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Uttaranchal High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Transfer Application No. 26 of 2004
Subject
Family
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue
Family
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed
Acts & sections
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 24; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lata

Advocate Sharad Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

Brijendra Kumar and ors.

Advocate Jyotsana, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
I(2005)DMC159

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 6. since applicant is a lady, who has a young son of three years with her, it is, therefore, can very well be gathered that she certainly has more difficulty and inconvenience in attending the court at haridwar as compared to the respondent no......application by the applicant that her husband, respondent no. 1, is employed with northern railway, and can conveniently come to dehradun while she has difficulty in coming to haridwar to attend the case pending between the parties there.4. brief facts of the case are that the said parties entered into wedlock on 15.11.1992 at meerut and had a son of about three years age. it appears that earlier respondent no. 1 instituted proceeding under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 before the judge, family court, ajmer, which was registered as case no. 253 of 1995. however, the ex parte decree passed in said petition appears to have been set aside. and, this time the petition under the same act is moved before the judge, family court, haridwar. alleging that applicant (wife) had difficulty in attending the court at haridwar, she had sought transfer of the case to the judge, family court at dehradun.5. in the counter affidavit, the respondent no. 1 has stated that the applicant goes every week to meerut to her parents' place and had no difficulty in attending the court at haridwar.6. since applicant is a lady, who has a young son of three years with her, it is, therefore, can very well be gathered that she certainly has more difficulty and inconvenience in attending the court at haridwar as compared to the respondent no. 1, who is a railway employee and resides in district haridwar. though, the distance between haridwar and dehradun is not much but still, in the circumstances of the case in view of the fact that a child of tender age is with the applicant, it appears just and proper to transfer the case from judge, family court, haridwar, to judge, family court, dehradun, so that without much inconvenience, both the parties can attend the court.7. therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the application is allowed and the matrimonial case no. 121 of 2004 filed under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1995, is transferred.....

Full Judgment

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This is a petition, moved under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 121 of 2004 filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits and counter affidavit filed by the parties.

3. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application by the applicant that her husband, respondent No. 1, is employed with Northern Railway, and can conveniently come to Dehradun while she has difficulty in coming to Haridwar to attend the case pending between the parties there.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the said parties entered into wedlock on 15.11.1992 at Meerut and had a son of about three years age. It appears that earlier respondent No. 1 instituted proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer, which was registered as Case No. 253 of 1995. However, the ex parte decree passed in said petition appears to have been set aside. And, this time the petition under the same Act is moved before the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. Alleging that applicant (wife) had difficulty in attending the Court at Haridwar, she had sought transfer of the case to the Judge, Family Court at Dehradun.

5. In the counter affidavit, the respondent No. 1 has stated that the applicant goes every week to Meerut to her parents' place and had no difficulty in attending the Court at Haridwar.

6. Since applicant is a lady, who has a young son of three years with her, it is, therefore, can very well be gathered that she certainly has more difficulty and inconvenience in attending the Court at Haridwar as compared to the respondent No. 1, who is a Railway Employee and resides in District Haridwar. Though, the distance between Haridwar and Dehradun is not much but still, in the circumstances of the case in view of the fact that a child of tender age is with the applicant, it appears just and proper to transfer the case from Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, to Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, so that without much inconvenience, both the parties can attend the Court.

7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, the application is allowed and the Matrimonial Case No. 121 of 2004 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, is transferred from Judge, Family Court, Haridwar to Judge, Family Court, Dehradun with the observation that same be disposed of by the Court at Dehradun as expeditiously as possible.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial