SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritika Arora vs Himanshu Arora on 8 February, 2019

T.A. No. 423 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

T.A. No. 423 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION :- February 08, 2019

Ritika Arora …Applicant

Versus

Himanshu Arora …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

Reply not filed.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that he opposes the

application vehemently.

By way of filing the present application, applicant Ritika Arora,

aged about 31 years, estranged wife of respondent Himanshu Arora seeks

transfer of petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards

Act, 1890 filed by respondent against her pending in the Court of Civil

Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana to the Court at Malerkotla. The petition in

question has been filed by respondent-husband against the applicant-wife

seeking custody of minor son of the parties namely master Girik Arora,

presently residing with her mother-the applicant at Malerkotla, Sangrur.

Under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 such

petition is to be filed in the District Court having jurisdiction in the place

1 of 2
10-02-2019 23:47:02 :::
T.A. No. 423 of 2018 2

where the minor ordinarily resides.

Under the circumstances, the applicant is relegated to the

remedy of moving appropriate application in the trial Court seeking return

of petition on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of

presenting it in the Court having jurisdiction over the matter. The trial Court

shall decide the application in accordance with law. However, if after

decision of the application, the applicant still feels aggrieved then she

would be at liberty to approach this Court again by moving similar

application.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
February 08, 2019
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

2 of 2
10-02-2019 23:47:02 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Ritika Arora vs Himanshu Arora on 8 February, 2019

T.A. No. 423 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

T.A. No. 423 of 2018
DATE OF DECISION :- February 08, 2019

Ritika Arora …Applicant

Versus

Himanshu Arora …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

***

Reply not filed.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that he opposes the

application vehemently.

By way of filing the present application, applicant Ritika Arora,

aged about 31 years, estranged wife of respondent Himanshu Arora seeks

transfer of petition under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards

Act, 1890 filed by respondent against her pending in the Court of Civil

Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana to the Court at Malerkotla. The petition in

question has been filed by respondent-husband against the applicant-wife

seeking custody of minor son of the parties namely master Girik Arora,

presently residing with her mother-the applicant at Malerkotla, Sangrur.

Under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 such

petition is to be filed in the District Court having jurisdiction in the place

1 of 2
10-02-2019 23:47:02 :::
T.A. No. 423 of 2018 2

where the minor ordinarily resides.

Under the circumstances, the applicant is relegated to the

remedy of moving appropriate application in the trial Court seeking return

of petition on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of

presenting it in the Court having jurisdiction over the matter. The trial Court

shall decide the application in accordance with law. However, if after

decision of the application, the applicant still feels aggrieved then she

would be at liberty to approach this Court again by moving similar

application.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

(H.S. MADAAN)
JUDGE
February 08, 2019
p.singh

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

2 of 2
10-02-2019 23:47:02 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh