Savita Devi v. Sampat Singh

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2016 Savita Devi ....Applicant

Versus

Sampat Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: - Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J. (ORAL) Instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking transfer of petition under Section 13(1) (i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') filed by respondent-husband from the Court at Bhiwani to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that respondent has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Act, which is pending in the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani. Now applicant with her minor child is residing at Rohtak. It is further contended that between the parties, proceedings under Sections 498-

-2A/406 IPC are pending at Rohtak. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepti Bhandari v. Nitin Bhandari and another, 2012(1)R.C.R.(Civil) 506 and contended that it would be easier for the respondent-husband to attend the proceedings in Rohtak than for the applicant to attend the same in Bhiwani. Therefore, the case under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Act may be transferred to Rohtak.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that proceedings in petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Act are civil in nature and presence of the applicant is not required on each and every date.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the circumstances mentioned in the petition, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepti Bhandari v. Nitin Bhandari and another, 2012(1)R.C.R.(Civil) 506 and having regard to the nature of the dispute involved in both the cases, it is highly expedient that the cases are heard by the same Court. It will not only be convenient for the applicant but also be in the interest of the respondent as well that all proceedings are tried at one place as he will not be required to appear at different places on different dates. Accordingly, petition under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Act pending in the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, is ordered to be

-3withdrawn and transferred to learned District Judge, Rohtak, who may assign the same to the court of competent jurisdiction there. Learned District Judge, Bhiwani shall ensure that entire record of the case is sent to learned District Judge, Rohtak. The parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Rohtak on 15.03.2016. Disposed of.

(Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) Judge February 25, 2016 R.S.