Harpreet Kaur v. Harpreet Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.115 TA-141-2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 

 

....Applicant

Versus



 .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dullat, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Harvinder Pal Ghuman, Advocate for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)
 

 

    

             

  !"!#   


 $%   

$ #    &'%  #& $     '     ' 

(   ) 

*      # 

' 

   %  +     

* is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 09.10.2021. One son born from the said wedlock, who is about 11⁄2 years old, is in the care and custody of the applicant. On account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant has no source of earning and is totally dependent upon her parental family. As such, she has filed the petition

 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is pending in the Courts at Barnala and the respondent is making appearance in the same. Besides the same, she has also filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for registration of case under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and 34 IPC, which is still pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for the applicant, to commute a distance of about 100 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply, submits that the applicant had already made appearance in the divorce petition, pending at Fatehgarh Sahib. Therefore, she can pursue the same and there is no necessity for filing separate application for seeking maintenance. The recourse could be by way of filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the pending litigation. As such, it is submitted that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is only a counter-blast to the divorce petition, filed by the respondent.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the Courts or the rival parties, cannot give an advise to the applicant, as to which process she should follow, to assert her rights, in the matrimonial dispute. It is for the party concerned, to take a decision, with regard to the kind of litigation, he/she wants to initiate. Even though, it is submitted that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is a counter-blast to the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the same is a matter, to be adjudicated by the concerned Court, where the litigation is pending. Solely, the fact about the divorce petition having filed prior in time, do not bar the applicant-wife from filing an application for

 seeking transfer of the divorce petition.

Considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute, more particularly, considering the fact about the applicant having no source of earning and taking care of the minor child and also considering the distance between the two places, the transfer application is allowed and           

  !"!#   


 $%   

$ #     ' &'%  #&  $#     ' 

(   )   
,     $

$% &'%  #& $# 

     -#) 

+      -#) #        &'%  #)  ./ #     $ &'%  #) #    '

'

%



(ARCHANA PURI) 06.03.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No