SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amanpreet Kaur Kang vs Kanwalvir Singh And Another on 28 May, 2018

102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

TA No. 490 of 2018 (O/M)
Date of decision : 28.5.2018

Amanpreet Kaur Kang ……. Petitioner

Versus

Kanwalvir Singh Kang and another ……. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

Present:- Petitioner in person with Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate.

Respondent-caveator in person.

1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

-.- -.-

KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)

This is an application for transfer of case i.e. HMA No. 727 of

2015, titled as Kanwalvir Singh Kang Versus Amanpreet Kaur and another,

from Court of Shri Rajnish Kumar Sharma, learned Additional District

Judge, Chandigarh, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at

Chandigarh, preferably designated Family Court at Chandigarh.

This application has been filed before this Court as this Court,

vide order dated 8.1.2018, passed in CR No. 6277 of 2017, titled as

Amanpreet Kaur Versus Kanwalvir Singh Kang and another, had issued a

direction to trial Court that this case will not be transferred to any other

Court without prior permission of this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner herself

and respondent-caveator himself.

The transfer of case is being sought on four grounds :-

(i) that learned trial Judge is not insisting on payment of
1 of 4
11-06-2018 02:19:37 :::
TA No. 490 of 2018 (O/M) -2-

maintenance, granted to present petitioner and changes the

order. However, now it is informed that entire maintenance has

been paid;

(ii) that learned trial Judge has insisted on filing of list of witnesses;

(iii) that her application for taking voice sample of petitioner

husband is pending which was adjourned. But, in intervening

period, learned Judge has been calling counsel and pressing for

decision on application;

(iv) that witness has been called from the office of SSP, Ludhiana,

with a CD and that CD was not sealed, but was returned back.

There is apprehension of tampering of same.

After considering certain circumstances brought on file and

copies of interim orders, produced by respondent-caveator, it comes out that

present divorce petition has already been transferred four times. First time,

on 4.4.2016, then female learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh,

rescued from hearing the case. Second time, on 23.12.2016, another female

learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, refused to hear the matter as

respondent wife in that case exhibited distrust in Court. Third time, again

on 16.5.2017, when case was put up before third learned Additional District

Judge, Chandigarh, he requested learned District Judge, Chandigarh, to

transfer the case from his Court to any other Court of competent jurisdiction

on the ground that it was difficult for him to conduct the proceedings.

Fourth time, another female learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh,

rescued from hearing the case on 28.9.2017. Now, applicant wife is

seeking transfer of case from fifth learned Additional District Judge,

Chandigarh, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

2 of 4
11-06-2018 02:19:38 :::
TA No. 490 of 2018 (O/M) -3-

Both parties have referred to certain interim orders. Since it is a

transfer matter, this Court would not like to go into merits of case as it may

prejudice to trial. Suffice to say, it is for trial Court to see which orders are

to be passed. This Court, on previous occasion, had ordered day to day trial

and considering that learned Judges on one or other ground are rescuing

them from hearing the case, restrained trial Court to transfer the case without

prior permission of this Court.

I am of the view that so far as maintenance is concerned, it can

be recovered and only on this ground, recording of evidence is not to be

stopped. So far as list of witnesses is concerned, provisions of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, require that list of witnesses should be filed before starting

of trial and there is nothing wrong in same. So far as voice sample is

concerned, evidence of respondent has already started. Therefore, it will be

dealt with at the time of hearing on application. There is nothing wrong, if

trial Court, in view of fact that this Court ordered day to day hearing of case,

asks counsel to argue on application. Any of the party can challenge order

passed on said application before the Higher Court. So far as, request for

sealing the CD being declined, I am of the view that it is for trial Court to

see what order is to be passed in given circumstances. Mere fact that Court

does not act as per desire of one or other party is no ground to hold that

learned Judge is biased.

The plea of present petitioner that she has no trust in learned

trial Judge, is no ground to transfer the case since this Court has trust in the

competence and impartiality of learned trial Judge. He is complying with

the order of this Court. Fact remains that a lot of scenes are created in

Court and it has become difficult for learned trial Judge to conduct trial.

3 of 4
11-06-2018 02:19:38 :::
TA No. 490 of 2018 (O/M) -4-

In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to transfer

petition. The learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, is directed that

if in future, any of party create scene in Court, he should resort to strict

provisions of CPC and IPC to ensure that parties behave properly in Court.

It is again reiterated that case will be conducted by Shri Rajnish Kumar

Sharma, learned Additional District Judge, Chandgiarh, and will not be

transferred to any other Court without prior permission of this Court.

Consequently, petition is dismissed. For filing frivolous petition and

wasting time of this Court, costs of Rs. 25,000/- are imposed upon

applicant-petitioner, to be deposited with State Legal Services Authority,

Chandigarh.

(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE

28.5.2018
sjks

Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No

Whether Reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4
11-06-2018 02:19:38 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh