SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Umang Gulati vs Vikram Suri on 3 March, 2020

TA No.1151 of 2019 (OM) 1

Sr. No.213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
TA No.1151 of 2019 (OM)
Date of Decision: 03.03.2020

Umang Gulati
… Applicant
Versus
Vikram Suri

… Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:- Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate,
for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

ARUN MONGA, J.(ORAL)

1. Applicant-wife seeks transfer of petition filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 bearing HMA/482/2019 titled as “Vikram Suri Vs. Umang

Gulati” pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family

Court, Gurdaspur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at

Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that petition

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance against

the respondent-husband filed by the applicant-wife was decided

by the learned Family Court, Jalandhar vide order dated

08.05.2019. He further submits that respondent has filed another

petition under Section 7, 8 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act

read with Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for

custody of the minor son namely Arsh before the learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar, which is already pending.

1 of 4
15-03-2020 13:50:51 :::
TA No.1151 of 2019 (OM) 2

3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that

applicant/petitioner is residing at Jalandhar with her old age

mother. Her father had already died. She is the only daughter of

her parents. The distance between Gurdaspur and Jalandhar is

about 100 kms. One minor son born out of the wedlock is residing

with the applicant-wife, who needs constant care and attention of

the mother. She cannot leave him behind to attend the Court

proceedings. Therefore, it is difficult for her to go to Gurdaspur on

each date of hearing.

4. Despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf

of the respondent-husband and in the premise, this Court is of the

view that respondent-husband has deemingly consented the

present transfer application by not contesting the same.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have

gone through the record of the case.

6. Both the cases pending between the parties are

aftermath of matrimonial discord. Keeping in view the contentions

in the application and the conceded position that petition under

Section 7, 8 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for custody

of the minor son namely Arsh is already pending at Jalandhar it

would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if both

the cases are tried and decided at one place.

7. Reference may also be had to the observations made

by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in cases titled as “Sumita

Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another”, AIR 2002 SC 396 and

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 13:50:51 :::
TA No.1151 of 2019 (OM) 3

Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi” 2005 (12) SCC

237, wherein in matrimonial matters, convenience of wife is to be

preferred over the convenience of husband.

8. Even otherwise, the ethos as manifested under Article

51-A of Constitution of India also envisage that it shall be

fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of

woman. In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been

conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and

children.

9. It was perhaps in this spirit that an amendment was

inserted by Act 50 of 2003 with effect from 23.12.2003 in Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, whereby, in case of a wife being the

petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local

limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is

residing on the date of presentation of the petition. In fact the very

statement of objects and reasons of the Bill whereby Clause (iiia)

was inserted in Section 19 (i) of HMA, by way of marriage laws

(Amendment Act 2003) states as below :

“The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 provide that a petition for relief
under the provisions of these Acts shall be presented to
the District Court within the limits of whose original civil
jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the
respondent, at the time of the presentation of the
petition, resided or the parties to the marriage last
resided together or the petitioner was residing at the
time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where
the respondent was at the time residing outside the

3 of 4
15-03-2020 13:50:51 :::
TA No.1151 of 2019 (OM) 4

territories to which these Acts extended or had not been
heard of as being alive for a period of seven years by
those who would naturally have heard of him if he were
alive. However, these provisions are not considered
adequate or fair as far the women are concerned. Under
the existing provisions, a petition cannot be filed by the
aggrieved wife to the District Court within the local limits
of whose ordinary jurisdiction she may be residing. In
view thereof, the Government has decided to amend the
provisions of these Acts so that the wife can also file
petition in the District Court within local limits of whose
jurisdiction she may be residing.”

10. After the aforesaid amendment, husband can only

institute proceedings, either where marriage was solemnized or

where the wife is residing or where the parties last resided

together. Only in a case where wife is residing outside India, the

husband can institute proceedings where he is residing. Whereas,

wife can file a petition on the additional ground of her being

resident within the local limits of the competent Court. The said

right has been exclusively conferred on a wife so as to keep her

convenience in mind in the matrimonial matters.

11. In the premise, present application is allowed. The

petition in question pending before the Court of learned Principal

Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur is ordered to be withdrawn from

that Court and is transferred to the District Judge, Jalandhar for its

disposal in accordance with law by the Court concerned.

(ARUN MONGA)
03.03.2020 JUDGE
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 15-03-2020 13:50:51 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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