Kamal NaIn Vs. Sumit Kumar Kamboj - Court Judgment |
| Family;Civil |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Mar-17-2006 |
| C.M. No. 14028-CII of 2005 |
| Hemant Gupta, J. |
| I(2006)DMC785 |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9 and 13 |
| Kamal Nain |
| Sumit Kumar Kamboj |
| Arvind Moudgil. Adv. |
| Rajesh Girdhar, Adv. |
| Smt. Kamal Nain v. Sumit Kutnar
|
.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........that the respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and dissolution, at ferozepur but the said petition was withdrawn on 25.1.2005. soon thereafter, the respondent has filed the present petition under section 9 of the hindu marriage act.3. keeping in view the undisputed fact that the husband is residing at mohali which is at a small distance from chandigarh. therefore, it is in the interest of justice, if petition, titled as smt. kamal nain v. sumit kutnar, under section 9 of the hindu marriage act pending in the court of ms. sunita kumari, civil judge (senior division), ferozepur is transferred to the learned district judge, chandigarh. it shall be open to the learned district judge to entrust the case to the another court having competent jurisdiction.4. parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned district judge, chandigarh for further proceedings on 4.4.2006.
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner has sought transfer of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the competent Court at Chandigarh.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the wedlock of the petitioner with respondent, two children were born on 1.12.1994 and 12.10.1998. The respondent started raising demand for dowry and a direction was issued by this Court to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and SHO, Police Station, Sector 71, Mohali to lodge an FIR against the respondent and his mother and brother. It has been further pointed out that the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and dissolution, at Ferozepur but the said petition was withdrawn on 25.1.2005. Soon thereafter, the respondent has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Keeping in view the undisputed fact that the husband is residing at Mohali which is at a small distance from Chandigarh. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice, if petition, titled as Smt. Kamal Nain v. Sumit Kutnar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending in the Court of Ms. Sunita Kumari, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur is transferred to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh. It shall be open to the learned District Judge to entrust the case to the another Court having competent jurisdiction.
4. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Chandigarh for further proceedings on 4.4.2006.