TA-877-2018(OM)
CRM-M-43586-2018(OM) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. TA-877-2018(OM)
Jyoti @ Jiya
…… Applicant
Versus
Mohit Aneja
…… Respondent
2. CRM-M-43586-2018(OM)
Jyoti @ Jiya
…… Applicant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
…… Respondents
Date of decision :-30.4.2019
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
***
Present : Mr.Gulshan Nandwani, Advocate
for the applicant.
Ms.Rupinder Kaur, Advocate
for respondent – Mohit Aneja.
Mr.Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana in
CRM-M-43586-2018.
***
H.S. MADAAN, J.
Vide this order, I shall dispose of TA-877-2018 and CRM-M-
43586-2018 filed by applicant Jyoti @ Jiya.
Applicant Jyoti @ Jiya, aged about 26 years estranged wife of
1 of 5
12-05-2019 10:18:18 :::
TA-877-2018(OM)
CRM-M-43586-2018(OM) -:2:-
Mohit Aneja – respondent presently residing with her parents at Rewari, on
account of differences between the spouses, has filed two applications, one
TA-877-2018 for transfer of divorce petition filed by her husband – the
respondent against her having title ‘Mohit Aneja Versus Jyoti @ Jiya’
pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa and second CRM-
M-43586-2018 for transfer of criminal case titled ‘State of Haryana Versus
Mohit Aneja etc.’ bearing FIR No.415 dated 11.5.2018 for the offences
under Sections 323, Section34, Section406, Section498-A IPC, registered at Police Station City,
District Sirsa, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class – III,
Sirsa, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rewari.
According to the applicant, marriage solemnized between the
parties on 28.4.2017, did not work on account of demand of dowry raised by
the respondent, which could not be fulfilled by applicant and her family; the
respondent levelled allegations against moral character of the applicant; the
applicant had to leave the matrimonial home and start residing with her
parents; she has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in District Courts
at Rewari, where respondent is appearing regularly. According to the
applicant, she being a young woman having no source of income, it is
difficult for her to travel from her parental place to Sirsa covering a distance
of about 265 kms. on one side to attend the dates of hearing in the Courts
there. Therefore, the applications be accepted.
Notices of the applications were given to respondents, who put
in appearance and filed written replies and opposed the applications
vehemently. Counsel for the respondent – Mohit Aneja opposed the
2 of 5
12-05-2019 10:18:18 :::
TA-877-2018(OM)
CRM-M-43586-2018(OM) -:3:-
applications contending that the applicant has given her permanent address
being that of Sirsa and she wants to get the cases transferred just to harass
the respondent, who is doing a private job and it would be difficult for him
to get leave from his employer quite often to attend the dates of hearing and
spend considerable money in travelling. Furthermore, the respondent
apprehends danger to his life at the hands of the applicant and his family
members inasmuch as on 27.11.2018 when respondent had gone to Court
Complex at Rewari to attend the date of hearing in petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant against him and was present at Bus Stand,
Rewari when hearing of the case was over, then two unknown boys came
on motorcycle and assaulted the respondent causing him injuries regarding
which he had informed the police. In that way, the respondent apprehends
danger to his life, if the cases are transferred to the Courts at Rewari.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
The Apex Court in various judgments has observed that in
matrimonial disputes between the spouses convenience of wife must be
looked into. In that regard a reference can be made to authority Sumita
Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 396 by a
Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav Versus Ravibhai Govindbhai Rav,
2017(3) RCR(Civil) 369, the Apex Court had allowed application for
transfer of the divorce petition to a place where the wife was residing
considering various factors including the distance between the place where
3 of 5
12-05-2019 10:18:18 :::
TA-877-2018(OM)
CRM-M-43586-2018(OM) -:4:-
the wife was residing and the place of sitting of the Court where divorce
petition had been instituted and the fact that the wife had filed two cases
against her husband in the Court at the place of her residence wherein the
respondent had already put in appearance.
In Apurva Versus Navtej Singh, 2017(2) Law Herald 966 by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was observed that wherever the Courts
are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial disputes, the
Courts have to take into consideration various factors like economic
soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses to which
they belong and behavioural pattern, standard of life antecedents of
marriage. Generally it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at by
the Courts while deciding the transfer application.
Keeping in view the contentions in TA-877-2018 and
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant in which I find merit
in absence of any strong circumstance to the contrary, it would be proper
and appropriate if the application is accepted.
Therefore, TA-877-2018 stands allowed and the divorce
petition having title ‘Mohit Aneja Versus Jyoti @ Jiya’ pending in the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa is ordered to be transferred to the Court
of District Judge, Family Court, Rewari. The parties are directed to appear
before District Judge, Family Court, Rewari on 28.5.2019.
However, to redress the apprehension expressed by respondent
regarding possible physical harm to respondent on his going to Rewari in
connection with attending dates of hearing, Superintendent of Police,
Rewari is directed to ensure that no physical harm is caused to the
4 of 5
12-05-2019 10:18:18 :::
TA-877-2018(OM)
CRM-M-43586-2018(OM) -:5:-
respondent or any other person accompanying him when he/they go to
Rewari in connection with attending dates of hearing.
While passing this order, it has been kept in mind that in
matrimonial litigation, the Courts do make efforts for reconciliation and
amicable settlement where personal appearance of the spouses is required.
Whereas with regard to CRM-M-43586-2018 for transfer of
criminal case, I find that though the applicant is complainant in that case
but as has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent – Mohit Aneja
and the State counsel the trial is going on. The complainant is required to
go there only once to get her statement recorded and her personal
appearance in the Court on each and every date is not required.
Thus, I do not see any reason to transfer the criminal case
titled ‘State of Haryana Versus Mohit Aneja etc.’ bearing FIR No.415 dated
11.5.2018 for the offences under Sections 323, Section34, Section406, Section498-A IPC,
registered at Police Station City, District Sirsa pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class – III, Sirsa. Therefore, CRM-M-43586-2018
stands dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to District Sessions Judge, Sirsa
as well as District Judge, Family Court, Rewari and Superintendent of
Police, Rewari for information and necessary compliance.
( H.S. MADAAN )
30.4.2019 JUDGE
Brij
1. Whether reportable? No
2. Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes
5 of 5
12-05-2019 10:18:18 :::