IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
TA No. 490 of 2018 (O/M)
Date of decision : 28.5.2018
Amanpreet Kaur Kang ……. Petitioner
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
(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,
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
11-06-2018 02:19:38 :::