Rani v. Trilok Kumar

TA No.604 of 2018 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH TA No.604 of 2018 Date of decision:30.08.2018 Rani ... Petitioner Vs.

Trilok Kumar ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. S.S.Mor, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the respondent.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner -wife for transferring the case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "1955 Act") titled as "Trilok Kumar vs. Rani" pending for cross-examination of the husband's evidence in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat and as well as petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "2005 Act) titled as "Smt. Rani Vs. Trilok Kumar", pending before the Court of JMIC, Sonepat to the competent Court at Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is resident of Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and therefore, the divorce petition may be transferred to Bahardurgarh for the convenience of SAVITA KADIAN 2018.09.05 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

TA No.604 of 2018 {2} wife as one more complaint is pending at Bahardurgarh. Mr. Anit Rathee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that petition under 2005 Act filed by the wife is pending before the Court at Sonepat and other petition under Section 13 of 1955 Act, in which for the last 20 years, wife is not coming forward for cross-examination of husband. It is a ploy to delay the trial and therefore, no ground is made out for transfer of the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Mor, for, distance between Bahadurgarh and Sonepat is about 45 kilometers. Concededly, wife is already appearing in the petition under Section 12 at Sonepat.

I cannot remain unmindful of the fact that zimni order shown to me during the course of hearing revealed that wife and her counsel are not coming forward for cross-examination of the husband. No ground is made out for transfer of the petitions. Resultantly, the transfer application is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 30, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2018.09.05 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh