SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jyoti @ Jiya vs Mohit Aneja on 30 April, 2019

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 :::

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 © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation