Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1699 (PNJ)

Sunita v. Surinder

2014-12-09

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - The present application is for transfer of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as ‘Surinder Vs. Sunita’ (Annexure P-1) which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind, to the Court of District Judge at Hisar. 2. It is the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has an apprehension that she would be mistreated by the respondent and there are chances of danger to her life and liberty from the respondent and his family members as they had earlier tried to eliminate the applicant by giving beatings. An FIR No.153 dated 08.04.2013, under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 IPC has also been registered at Police Station Narnaud, District Hisar. Petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2055 is also pending against the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Hansi, District Hisar. He further contends that there is no Family Court at Jind whereas the same is available at Hisar and, therefore, on that basis, it is asserted that the petition under Section 13 of the Act preferred by the respondent-husband be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Hisar. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments passed by this Court in TA No.345 of 2010, titled as ‘Bimla Devi Vs. Abhimanyu’, decided on 15.11.2010, as also in TA No.61 of 2013, titled as ‘Kavita Vs. Paramjeet’, decided on 09.09.2013. He, accordingly, prays that since the respondent is already facing two cases in District Hisar, the present transfer application may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, has asserted that the distance between the place of residence of the applicant and the Court at Jind is much less than the Court at Hisar and, therefore, it will be much more convenient for her to travel to the Court at Jind where the trial is going on. She further states that the applicant is merely proceeding on the assumption and apprehension that there will be danger to her life and liberty. Counsel assures the Court, on behalf of the respondent, that there is no such threat from the respondent or his family members. She further states that the applicant is merely proceeding on the assumption and apprehension that there will be danger to her life and liberty. Counsel assures the Court, on behalf of the respondent, that there is no such threat from the respondent or his family members. She contends that merely because the applicant is seeking transfer from the Court at Jind to the Court at Hisar, should not be a ground for transferring the case especially when the convenience of the wife has not only to be seen but also of the parties together. Even as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court at Jind has the jurisdiction to try the petition and the transfer, if allowed of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, would be beyond the statute and against the observations made in the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 5. It is true that the convenience of the wife has to be given precedence over the convenience of the husband but that does not mean that it would be the sweet will of the wife to force a case to be transferred or the trial to take place at the place of her choice giving a go-bye to the statute altogether. In the present case, as per the pleadings and admitted facts the place of residence of the applicant is nearer to the Court at Jind than the Court at Hisar and, therefore, the convenience would be in her favour if the trial is continued at Hisar. That apart, in the light of the assurance given by the counsel for the respondent that no harm would be caused to her either by the respondent or his family members, the apprehension of the applicant appears to be misplaced and, therefore, cannot be made the basis for allowing the present application. 6. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant with regard to the convenience of the wife i.e. Kavita’s case (supra), in the present facts and circumstances of the case, would go against the interest of the applicant-wife as her convenience would be in continuing at the Court at Jind instead of Hisar. 6. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the applicant with regard to the convenience of the wife i.e. Kavita’s case (supra), in the present facts and circumstances of the case, would go against the interest of the applicant-wife as her convenience would be in continuing at the Court at Jind instead of Hisar. With reference to the judgment passed in Bimla Devi’s case (supra), merely because the Family Court is not situated at Jind, cannot be a ground for transferring the case to Hisar from Jind. If this principle is to be accepted, then all cases under the Hindu Marriage Act would only be tried by the Family Courts which would be against the very statute. 7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present transfer application, the same stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————