← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaTA/800/2023allowed

Rajeev v. Abhijeet

2025-03-24Mrs. Justice Archana Puri3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.222 Date of Decision: 24.03.2025 RAJEEV ....Applicant

Versus

ABHIJEET .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Abhinav, Advocate for the applicant.

None for the respondent.

***** ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral) As per the order dated 10.12.2024, despite service, the respondent did not make appearance on that date. Even on the subsequent date, none had made appearance on behalf of the respondent. Today also, none has made appearance on his behalf. As such, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

The counsel for the respondent heard.

 

 

   

          

  ! ! "   

   #$     

# "   "'     &   & 

( )

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 16.03.2021, but no child was born from the said wedlock. On account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is having no source of earning

and is totally dependent upon her parental family. She has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. COMA/194/2022 and the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. MNT/183/2022, which are pending in the Courts at Bhiwani and the respondent is making appearance in the same. Besides the same, the respondent is facing trial of the FIR bearing No.26 dated 08.03.2022, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC, got lodged by the applicant, in the Courts at Bhiwani, wherein challan has been presented. Also, she has filed a complaint bearing No.87 of 2022, under Sections 217, 218, 323, 354, 377, 498-A, 376, 341, 342, 406, 511, 120-B and 34 IPC, which is also pending in the Courts at Bhiwani. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent is an Advocate by profession.

On query by the Court, it is submitted by the counsel that the respondent is practising at Rohtak. In view of the submissions aforesaid, 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, taking into consideration the fact about the respondent, who is an Advocate and practising at Rohtak, having not come forward to resist the application and also considering the fact of other litigation arising from the matrimonial dispute to be already pending in the Courts at Bhiwani, the transfer application is allowed and                ! !

 #$  

# "    & "' " 

  & 

( ) *    #

#$ "' "      +")

,     +") "  ") -. "     # ") "   &

&

$



(ARCHANA PURI) 24.03.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No