Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 756 (HP)

Ranjana Kumari v. Sanjay Kumar

2013-08-20

KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. This petition at the instance of wife has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the case HMA No. 36/2011 titled as Sanjay Kumar v. Ranjana Kumari from the court of District Judge, Mandi to the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is residing at Mandi, she is unemployed and it is very difficult for her to pursue the case at Mandi because of the threats of the respondent, who is also resident of District Mandi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Madhu Saxena v. Pankaj Saxena (2005) 13 SCC 158 in support of his submission for transferring the case from Mandi to Hamirpur. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, she was already married. The respondent is serving in the Army and is not presently residing in District Mandi because of his employment with the Army. He has submitted that the allegations of threats to petitioner are unfounded. He has submitted that no case is made out for transferring the case from Mandi to Hamirpur. 4. The petitioner in support of the petition has filed her affidavit in which she has shown herself to be resident of Cosmos Hospital/Nursing Home, Ghara Road near Petrol Pump, Jallandhar, Punjab. There is no reason to disbelieve the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that respondent is serving in Army and is not presently residing in District Mandi. The petitioner has levelled bald allegation regarding the threat extended by the respondent, there is no worth-believing material on record that the respondent has ever threatened the petitioner in connection with the petition which he has filed against the petitioner at Mandi. Madhu Saxena (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as that case was decided by the Supreme Court on the facts of that case. 5. The petitioner even as per her case can defend the petition at Hamirpur, therefore, she can very well defend the petition at Mandi also. She as per her affidavit is residing at Jallandhar, no case for transfer of the petition is made out from Mandi to Hamirpur. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed so also the pending application, if any. 5. The petitioner even as per her case can defend the petition at Hamirpur, therefore, she can very well defend the petition at Mandi also. She as per her affidavit is residing at Jallandhar, no case for transfer of the petition is made out from Mandi to Hamirpur. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed so also the pending application, if any. The interim order dated 10.5.2013 is vacated. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court below on 9.9.2013. 6. Copy dasti.