SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritu vs Sandeep Kumar on 4 April, 2019

TA-1097-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

TA-1097-2018 (OM)
Date of decision: 04.04.2019

Ritu
…Applicant
Versus

Sandeep Kumar
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

CM-7882-CII-2019

This is an application for placing on record the reply on

behalf of the respondent along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-6.

Heard. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Documents

be taken on record.

Main Case

By way of moving the present application, applicant Ritu,

aged about 29 years, estranged wife of respondent Sandeep Kumar,

presently residing with her parents at Ambala City, on account of

differences between the spouses, seeks transfer of divorce petition filed

by her husband, the respondent against her having title ‘Sandeep

Kumar Vs. Ritu’ pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge,

1 of 5
15-04-2019 04:39:44 :::
TA-1097-2018 -2-

Kurukshetra to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala.

According to the applicant, the marriage solemnized

between the parties ran into rough weather. Resultantly, the applicant

along with minor son of the parties, namely Ashwani Sodhi, aged about

06 years, who is mentally challenged, had to leave the matrimonial

home and start residing with her parents at Ambala City. The applicant

has attached supporting documents including the disability certificate

of minor son of the parties showing that he is 100% disabled;

According to the applicant she does not have any source of income, as

such, she has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another

petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 as well as a complaint under Sections 406 and 498-

A of IPC against the respondent and his family members at Ambala

City. Just to pressurize the applicant, the respondent has filed the

divorce petition against the applicant in a Court at Kurukshetra. The

applicant having no source of income, required to take care of minor

son of the parties, who is mentally challenged and who requires

constant care and cannot be left alone at any given moment of time, it

is difficult for her to travel from Ambala City to Kurukshetra to attend

the dates of hearing in Court there. Therefore, the present application

be accepted.

Notice of the application was given to the respondent, who

has put in appearance and filed written reply, contesting the application

vehemently, contending therein that the distance between Ambala City

2 of 5
15-04-2019 04:39:45 :::
TA-1097-2018 -3-

and Kurukshetra is only 40 kms, which can easily be traversed by the

applicant. The respondent has to look after his ailing parents and

mentally retarded sister. The behaviour of the applicant towards

respondent and his family members during her stay at the matrimonial

home, was rude and cruel. Mamta, sister of the respondent, aged about

35 years is 100% mentally challenged. Under the circumstances, the

respondent cannot leave his ailing parents and mentally challenged

sister alone and go to Ambala City to attend the dates of hearing in

Court there. As such, the application be dismissed being without any

merit. The respondent has also attached copies of medical documents

to show that his parents are unwell and his sister is mentally

challenged. He has attached some photographs in that regard also.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

The reasons given in the application for transfer by the

applicant and as argued by learned counsel for the applicant clearly

outweigh the reasons given by the respondent in the written reply and

comparatively inconvenience to the applicant shall be much more, in

case this application is declined, than to the respondent, if the same is

allowed.

The Apex Court in various judgments has observed that in

matrimonial disputes between the spouses convenience of wife should

be looked into. In that regard a reference can be made to authority

Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 396

3 of 5
15-04-2019 04:39:45 :::
TA-1097-2018 -4-

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 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 the application 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. The same is

accordingly allowed. The petition in question is ordered to be

4 of 5
15-04-2019 04:39:45 :::
TA-1097-2018 -5-

withdrawn from the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra and

transferred to Family Court at Ambala for disposal in accordance with

law.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in

the transferee Court on 02.05.2019. Copies of orders be sent to both the

Courts for information and necessary compliance.

04.04.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

5 of 5
15-04-2019 04:39:45 :::

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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