Upload
raj-kumar-yadav
View
198
Download
9
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
In Anindita Das v Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 it was observedthat at one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to the ladies butsince then it has been found that large number of transfer petitions are filedby women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court.Therefore, the leniency of the Supreme Court was being misused by thewomen. As such, it was now required to consider each petition on its merit.
Citation preview
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh......
T.A. No.182 of 2008.....
Date of decision:27.5.2008
Tajinder Kaur.....Petitioner
v.
Sham Singh.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.......
S.S. Saron, J. (Oral)
This transfer petition under Section 24 CPC read with Section
151 CPC has been filed seeking transfer of the petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act' – for short) filed by the respondent
against the petitioner at Ludhiana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at
Jalandhar.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on
14.12.2006 at Jalandhar. It is submitted that the parents of the petitioner
spent an amount of Rs.10-12 Lacs on the marriage. However, later
matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. Out of the wedlock amongst
themselves they had a female child on 8.11.2007, who according to the
learned counsel, is residing with the respondent-husband.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner is a feeble lady and dependent on her father. Her mother recently
died on 11.4.2008 due to tension and, therefore, it is submitted that the
petition (Annexure-P.1) under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent
T.A. No.182 of 2008[2]
is liable to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. It may be
noticed that in his petition (Annexure-P.1) filed by the respondent under
Section 9 of the Act it has been stated that the parties last lived and
cohabited as husband and wife at Ludhiana within the ordinary original and
territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, therefore, the said Court has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition. Therefore, the petition has been
filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act by making necessary
averments regarding territorial jurisdiction. It may also be noticed that the
distance from Jalandhar to Ludhiana is not much and both are on National
Highway No.1. The distance is about 60 Kms. and there is regular buses
and also train service between both the stations. Insofar as insufficiency of
funds for travelling, it may be noticed that on filing of necessary application
by the petitioner before the Court before whom the petition under Section 9
of the Act is pending necessary and adequate travelling allowance can be
allowed.
In Anindita Das v Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 it was observed
that at one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to the ladies but
since then it has been found that large number of transfer petitions are filed
by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the leniency of the Supreme Court was being misused by the
women. As such, it was now required to consider each petition on its merit.
Therefore, considering the present petition on merit and
keeping in view the fact that distance between Jalandhar and Ludhiana is 60
Kms. There is regular bus and train service, besides the fact that necessary
T.A. No.182 of 2008[3]
travelling allowance can be granted to the petitioner as also the fact that the
minor daughter is with the respondent-husband, it would be just and
expedient not to transfer the case pending before the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Ludhiana. Consequently, the transfer application is
dismissed.
May 27, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge
*hsp*