TA-196 of 2019 and other cases -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

TA-196-2019 (OM)

Shruti Bedi
…Applicant
Versus

Amandeep Singh
…Respondent

TA-183-2019 (OM)

Shruti Bedi
…Applicant
Versus

Amandeep Singh and another
…Respondent

CRM-M-10764-2019 (OM)

Shruti Bedi
…Petitioner
Versus

Amandeep Singh
…Respondent

Date of decision: 03.05.2019

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate
for respondent-Amandeep Singh.

****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

By this order, I shall dispose of three applications filed by

applicant Shruti Bedi against her husband Amandeep Singh, the

respondent, seeking transfer of three cases pending between them in

1 of 4
12-05-2019 08:25:35 :::
TA-196 of 2019 and other cases -2-

various Courts at Hoshiarpur. Transfer Application No.183-2019 is with

regard to transfer of divorce petition titled ‘Amandeep Singh Vs. Shruti

Bedi and another’, pending in the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur,

Transfer Application No.196-2019 is with regard to transfer of petition

under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 12 read with Section 25 of Guardian and SectionWards

Act, for the custody of minor son, pending before Civil Judge (Sr. Divn)-

cum-Guardian Judge, Hoshiarpur and petition No.CRM-M-10764-2019,

under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transfer of petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st

Class, Hoshiarpur to the Courts of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar or

Amritsar.

According to the applicant, she got married with respondent

on 08.11.2011 at Hoshiarpur. The couple was blessed with a son, namely,

Master Khushmeet Singh, born on 05.08.2012, presently in the custody of

respondent. On account of matrimonial discord between the spouses,

allegedly for the reason of demand of dowry by respondent and his family

members from the applicant, the applicant was made to leave the

matrimonial home and to go to her parental place. She was in family way

at that time. She delivered a male child at her parental house. The

respondent has filed the divorce petition against her by levelling false

allegations of adultery, whereas, the applicant has filed a petition for

getting the custody of minor son, besides filing another petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent. All the three cases are

pending in various Courts at Hoshiarpur; that respondent is a practising

2 of 4
12-05-2019 08:25:35 :::
TA-196 of 2019 and other cases -3-

Advocate at District Courts Hoshiarpur and due to that reason, no

Advocate is ready to contest the cases against the respondent. Brother in-

law of the applicant is an Advocate at District Court, Ludhiana who

comes to Hoshiarpur to attend the dates of hearing; that both the

applicant and respondent are residing at Hoshiarpur; that the applicant is

dependent upon her parents, having no source of income. Therefore, the

cases be transferred, as prayed for, in the applications.

The applications are being resisted by the respondent. In the

written reply filed by him, he has denied the material assertions in the

applications, contending that the divorce petition is at the fag end. After

conclusion of evidence by the answering respondent, who is petitioner in

the divorce petition, two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the

present applicant; that marriage between the applicant and answering

respondent was culmination of a love affair, therefore, there could not be

any reason to demand of any dowry. It is further contended that there are

serious allegations of adultery against the applicant. The case of the

respondent is that the present applicant is being represented by two

counsel at Hoshiarpur. The respondent is a handicapped person and it

would be inconvenient for him to go to a place outside Hoshiarpur, if the

cases are transferred there.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record and I find that all the three applications are doomed

for failure. As per copy of handicapped certificate placed on file by the

respondent, that certificate is shown to have been issued by the office of

3 of 4
12-05-2019 08:25:35 :::
TA-196 of 2019 and other cases -4-

Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur on 11.08.1997 and the respondent is shown to

be suffering from Polio of both legs and permanent disability is assessed

at 85%. It being so, it would indeed be difficult for the respondent to

undertake travelling, so as to attend the dates of hearings in the cases, if

they are transferred outside Hoshiarpur. The applicant herself is residing

at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Her apprehension that since the

respondent is a practising Advocate and he may interfere in the judicial

proceedings is totally misconceived and without basis. No person, not

even a practising Advocate, howsoever, senior or leading, can dare to

interfere in judicial proceedings. Therefore, merely for the reason that the

respondent is a practising Advocate at District Courts Hoshiarpur, cannot

lead to the inference that he can interfere in the judicial proceedings to

the detriment of the applicant. I do not see any reason to accept the

applications and transfer the cases as prayed for by the applicant.

Accordingly, the same stand dismissed.

03.05.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

4 of 4
12-05-2019 08:25:35 :::