High Court of Punjab and HaryanaTA/767/2018dismissed

Richa v. Pankaj Pal

2018-08-30Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Verma2 pages

T.A. No.767 of 2018 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.767 of 2018 Date of Decision.30.08.2018 Richa ......Petitioner Vs Pankaj Pal

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on behalf of the husband (Annexure P-1) stated to be pending in the Court of District Judge, Narnaul and listed for 31.08.2018 for appearance of the petitionerwife, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Hansi. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is aged 24 years and has no source of income. The father of the petitioner is a labourer and mother is a house wife. The distance between Narnaul and Hansi is about 310 kms and it will cause grave hardship to the petitioner as parents of the petitioner are old aged and there is no male member to accompany petitioner. Moreover, she has apprehension at the hands of respondent and his family members.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and force in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.09.07 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

T.A. No.767 of 2018 -2submissions of Mr. Sharma, for, concededly the marriage between the parties was performed on 25.11.2016 at Hisar, thereafter, the petitioner-wife shifted to matrimonial home at Mohindergarh. I cannot remain unmindful of the fact that the wife, during all this period, must have travelled from Mohindergarh to Hansi and vice versa and at that time, there was no inconvenience. However, inconvenience only occurred after matrimonial discord. Such an inconvenience, in my view, cannot be a ground for transfer of the petition.

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, I do not find it a fit case for transfer of the petition.

The transfer application is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 30, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.09.07 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document