← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42657/2015dismissed

Harjinder Singh v. Rupinder Kaur

2015-12-18Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-42657 of 2015 Date of Decision: December 18, 2015 Harjinder Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Rupinder Kaur

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and complaint under Section 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala to the Courts of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner only argued regarding convenience of the husband for transferring the cases from Patiala to Sangrur. He argued that these cases have been filed by the respondent-wife to harass the petitioner and are counterblast. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

VINEET GULATI 2015.12.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-42657 of 2015 -2From the record, I find that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under the Domestic Violence act have been filed by present respondent Rupinder Kaur at Patiala. The present petitioner is husband of respondent and he is residing at Sangrur. There is no law vide which the convenience of the husband is to be seen. There is no inconvenience to the petitioner to go and attend the Courts at Patiala from Sangrur. If the cases are transferred to Sangrur, then it will cause lot of inconvenience to respondent Rupinder Kaur as she has to go to Sangrur.

Furthermore, the fact that whether these petitions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Domestic Violence Act, are counterblast etc. is to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

December 18, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.12.21 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh