Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 718 (PNJ)

Ritu Gupta v. Amit Kumar Garg

2005-07-08

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for transfer of a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) filed by the respondent-husband against the petitioner titled as "Amit Kumar v. Ritu Gupta" which is pending in the Court of Sh. Zora Singh, Additional District Judge, Barnala, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. 2. As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner is working as Lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala and has been living in the accommodation provided by the said institute at Patiala. Father of the petitioner is working in the Punjab University, Chandigarh. A female child was born to the petitioner from the loins of the respondent on 5.7.2002. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent and his family members are dowry seekers and being not satisfied by the dowry articles given by the petitioners parents at the time of marriage, the respondent has been treating her with cruelty. The respondent has also been adopting lackadaisical attitude towards the petitioner and her daughter as he has never bothered to see her daughter even once since her birth. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in a Court at Chandigarh claiming maintenance for the minor child which is pending in the Court of Ms. Sangeeta Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh. It is further alleged that as a counter blast to the above petition, the respondent has filed a divorce petition against the petitioner at Barnala. The petitioner seeks transfer of the said divorce petition to Chandigarh on the grounds that the respondent had earlier filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat at Chandigarh and now the respondent has filed divorce petition at Barnala with a view to harass the petitioner. The petitioner further alleges that she has to travel to Barnala to attend the proceedings with her infant female child on every date of hearing. The petitioner further alleges that she apprehends danger to her life at the hands or at the instance of the respondent because of their strained relations. 3. The petitioner further alleges that she has to travel to Barnala to attend the proceedings with her infant female child on every date of hearing. The petitioner further alleges that she apprehends danger to her life at the hands or at the instance of the respondent because of their strained relations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Deepika V/s. Vinod Bhalla, 2004 4 RCR(Civil) 121 and another decision of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay and Anr., AIR 2002 SC 396 and contended that for ordering transfer of such petitions, it is the convenience of the wife which is required to be taken note of and consequently the petition in question deserves to be transferred from Barnala to Chandigarh. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that there are no justifiable grounds for ordering the transfer of the petition as prayed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The sole question that needs consideration by this Court is, whether there are sufficient grounds for transfer of the divorce case between the parties pending in the Court Barnala to Chandigarh. This Court in Deepikas case (supra) has held as under: "After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the convenience of the wife-respondent has always been kept in view in the proceedings undertaken by the husband. Such guidance is available in the Act itself. Section 19 of the Act inter alia provides that proceedings can be initiated at the place where the wife resides and not at the place where the husband resides. This provision has been made on account of the reason that the wife would always be dependent upon her parents for emotional, moral and in most of the cases for financial support." From the above observations, it is clear that convenience of the wife has been considered to be primary factor for ordering transfer of proceedings. While making the above observations, the learned Judge has also taken note a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singhs case (supra). In the later case as well, convenience of the wife was considered to be the sole factor for ordering transfer of the proceedings. While making the above observations, the learned Judge has also taken note a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singhs case (supra). In the later case as well, convenience of the wife was considered to be the sole factor for ordering transfer of the proceedings. 5 From the judicial enunciations noticed above, it is abundantly clear that the proceedings like the one initiated by the respondent-husband against the petitioner should be transferred at or near the place where the wife resides and it is the convenience of the wife which has been held to be of paramount consideration. The decisions made in the aforesaid cases are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, the petitioner wife has specifically alleged that she has been residing at Patiala and she being lady feels unsafe to travel all alone from Patiala to Barnala to attend the proceedings under Section 13 initiated by her husband due to their strained relations. Moreover, she has one small female child whom she takes alongwith her while attending the proceedings at Barnala. Petitioners parents are residing at Chandigarh and if the divorce case is transferred to Chandigarh, it will be convenient for her to leave the child at her parents house while attending the divorce proceedings. The facts stated in the petition have neither been denied nor controverted by the respondent. 6. In view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as noticed above, the petition is accepted and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled is "Amit Kumar v. Ritu Gupta" is withdrawn from the file of Shri Zora Singh, Additional District Judge, Barnala and is transferred to the file of the District Judge, Chandigarh with a further direction that the latter may dispose of the said case either himself or assign it for hearing to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh on 2.8.2005 for appropriate orders. Since proceedings before the trial Court were stayed by this Court, it is directed that the transferee Court shall now proceed to dispose of the aforesaid divorce petition expeditiously in accordance with law.