Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 912 (JK)

Kailash Devi v. Pawan Kumar

2017-10-06

M.K.HANJURA

body2017
ORDER : 1. The petitioner seeks the transfer of a petition filed by the respondent for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1980 from the Court of District Judge, Kathua to the Court Additional District Judge, (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu. 2. The sum and substances of the application of the petitioner is that the sister of the respondent, namely, Ms. Puneet, is a practicing Advocate, in the District Court complex at Kathua, where the case is pending disposal and when ever she (the petitioner) appears in the Court in person, a battery of advocates hover around her and they start staring at her with suspicious eyes and make unwarranted comments against her. 3. In his objections, the respondent has vehemently denied the contents of the application of the petitioner by stating that although the sister of the respondent is a practicing advocate in the District Courts complex at Kathua, where the divorce petition is sub judice, yet the allegations leveled by the applicant are baseless, vague and concocated. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The plaintiff/petitioner as dominus litis has the right to choose any forum that the law allows him but this right is subject to the control of sections 22 to 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The burden is always on the applicant to carve out a strong case for transfer. The discretionary powers vested in the courts for the transfer of the cases is not an unbridled one. It is always for the court to find out from the allegations made in petition whether a just or reasonable ground is made out for the transfer of a case. It is only when a satisfactory and justified reason for transfer of the case from one court to another is spelt out that the court has the power to interfere. On the grounds which are flimsy in nature and character as in the present case, the Trial Court cannot be divested of the jurisdiction to try the petition. Mere apprehension, presumption and speculations cannot form the baseline for the transfer of a case from one court to another. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner in the petition are meek and week and do not justify closing the doors of the court in which the petition has been filed. There appears to be no merit in the application of the petitioner. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner in the petition are meek and week and do not justify closing the doors of the court in which the petition has been filed. There appears to be no merit in the application of the petitioner. It entitles dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Court of District Judge, Kathua for information.