Shinam Parmar v. Vishal Verma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.105 Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 SHINAM PARMAR ....Applicant

Versus

VISHAL VERMA .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Aakash Rana, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

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

 

    

             

 

   


    

  !"   

!      #$"% &  

  $  %  $ 

'   

(        

$ 

   "

 )     

  *"       

!$



    $  !

                    

+ ,

 !    ! $      * 

 

 $ $         

!$

    

*    $ (  *

 $    !$

       

  $$    ! $     *   

   !$

          -% .

%    $

  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, filed by the applicant, are already pending in the Courts at Hoshiarpur. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent, while making reference to the reply and the documents annexed therewith, submits that the conduct of the applicant is such, which does not call for transfer of the divorce petition. In fact, it is submitted that the respondent's family is running the business of gold and they are running jewellery shops. However, the applicant had committed theft of the gold ornaments, to the extent of 15 tolas and she had extended apology for her conduct, which is Annexure R-3. Also, she had got recorded her statement, during the inquiry of the complaint filed by the respondent's family, wherein she had given the detail of the gold ornaments, stolen by her.

Even though, she had agreed to return back the gold ornaments, but she had not done so and an FIR bearing No.53 dated 12.06.2022, under Sections 380, 406 and 120-B IPC, was got lodged against the applicant and her mother, at Police Station Fattudhingra, District Kapurthala. The respondent is facing trial of the aforesaid FIR, in the Courts at Kapurthala.

In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent, on query by the Court, the authenticity of the documents,

Annexures R-1 to R-6, filed at the instance of the respondent, is not disputed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact situation and also considering the fact that the applicant, who is indulging into wrongful activities and that too with her own in-laws and is already facing trial in Kapurthala, no case is made out for transfer of the divorce petition, more particularly, when she is not required to make appearance personally, on each and every date.

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed. (ARCHANA PURI) 28.01.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No