Anuradha Yadav vs Amit Gupta on 7 June, 2017

TA No. 673 of 2016
TA No. 674 of 2016 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Date of decision : 07.06.2017

(1) TA No. 673 of 2016

Dr. Anuradha Yadav ….Petitioner

V/s

Dr. Amit Gupta ….Respondent

(2) TA No. 674 of 2016

Dr. Anuradha Yadav ….Petitioner

V/s

Dr. Amit Gupta ….Respondent

BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. Aman Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent(s).

RAJAN GUPTA J.

This order will dispose of aforesaid two transfer applications

seeking transfer of proceedings pending at Amritsar to a court of coordinate

jurisdiction at Gurgaon.

Petitioner and respondent got married on 21.04.1994. They are

stated to have lived together for a period of six years at Saharanpur and

Surat. No child was born out of this wedlock. It appears both were students

of Government College, Surat while pursuing MBBS course. Petitioner

claims that her parents were against the marriage but alliance was entered

into due to love affair with the respondent. She alleges that she had taken a

wrong decision. She was harassed and taunted for bringing less dowry. In

the year 1999, respondent, a pediatrician, went to U.K. for a job. Petitioner
1 of 4
17-06-2017 16:36:37 :::
TA No. 673 of 2016
TA No. 674 of 2016 2

had to stay in Gurgaon with her parents as she was not welcome in the

matrimonial home. Later on, she also went to U.K. There differences arose

between the couple. Petitioner claims that primary reason for this was that

she was not able to conceive. She also alleges that her husband had

READ  Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 29 September, 1999

developed a extra marital relation. Things came to such a pass that they

wanted to dissolve their marriage by consent. They, thus approached the

family court at Oxford. A detailed agreement was filed before said court.

Same is annexed with this petition as annexure P2. Petition was disposed of

by the court in U.K. and following order was passed :-

“AND BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED that an Order be
and is hereby granted in the terms of the said annexed Minute
(as amended) and that it do stand as the Order of this Court.”

Aforesaid order was passed on the basis of consent given by the

parties. Perusal of settlement shows that parties agreed that they would

pursue divorce proceedings before the Indian courts. On coming back to

India, petitioner filed petition under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 titled as Anuradha Yadav vs. Amit Gupta at Gurgaon. However,

she withdrew the same and filed again at Amritsar in view of certain

jurisdictional issues. Respondent-husband also initiated certain litigation

against his wife by filing two civil suits at Gurgaon. He also filed a petition

under section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Amritsar.

Both the divorce petitions, one initiated by wife and another by husband, are

pending at Amritsar. The wife has prayed that petition pending at Amritsar

be transferred to a court of coordinate jurisdiction at Gurgaon as she

normally lands at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and it

would be convenient to pursue the case at Gurgaon. Husband has made
2 of 4
17-06-2017 16:36:38 :::
TA No. 673 of 2016
TA No. 674 of 2016 3

prayer on similar lines. Admittedly, both of them are living in U.K. at

READ  Sangappa S/O.Venkappa B Patil, vs State Of Karnataka, By Jamakhandi ... on 14 December, 2010

present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed that

proceedings be transferred to Gurgaon as it would be convenient for both the

parties. Prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel representing the

respondent-husband.

I find plea of the parties untenable. Section 24 envisages a

special power for transfer of proceedings in certain circumstances. Same

has to be exercised keeping in view certain exigencies. While passing an

order of transfer, jurisdictional issues would normally arise. As jurisdiction

is specifically conferred by statue on certain courts, proceedings cannot be

transferred merely on the asking of parties. Instant case is a unique case

where both the parties are residing in U.K. They initially invoked the

jurisdiction of court at U.K. for dissolution of their marriage. However, by

their consent an order was passed by Judge of Family court at Oxford giving

them liberty to pursue the matter in India. Initially petitioner-wife filed

petition under section 13 at Gurgaon. However, in view of jurisdictional

issues she withdrew the same and filed at Amritsar. Husband also filed his

own petition in the court at Amritsar. It is inexplicable why parties did not

seek divorce by way of mutual consent by invoking section 13-B of the Act.

Both parties insist on proving their respective grounds for the purpose of

decree of divorce. They also insist that they would choose the jurisdiction

where they could pursue their respective petitions. In my considered view,

this cannot be allowed. Parties cannot be given liberty to chose the forum

where they would find it convenient to contest the litigation. It is for this

READ  Surender Singh And Others vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 March, 2017

court to consider under the enabling provisions (section 24 CPC) whether
3 of 4
17-06-2017 16:36:38 :::
TA No. 673 of 2016
TA No. 674 of 2016 4

such circumstances/exigencies exist which demand that proceedings be

transferred from one court to another court of coordinate jurisdiction in a

different District. Discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be

imprisoned in a straitjacket or cast-iron formula applicable to all situations.

It cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with

due care, caution and circumspection (see Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder vs.

Kandi Friends Education Trust ors. (2008) 3 SCC, 659). The facts and

circumstances of this case show that petitioners wish to proceed with the

matter according to their own wishes and choose the jurisdiction themselves.

This court finds the prayer misconceived. There is no merit in the petitions.

Same are hereby dismissed.

June 07, 2017 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4
17-06-2017 16:36:38 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *