Komal Kanda v. Randeep Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.132 TA-1337-2024 Date of Decision: 13.02.2025

   ....Applicant

Versus

 .....Respondent

CORAM:

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

Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent.

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

 

  

             

 

   



 ! "

# 

$

  "#$%!&%'(') 

 
  

    

                * 

  +  +   +

,   

-  

#         +    . 

 ,/   0          

          

         "1       

        

      



      2        It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 15.02.2020. One daughter born from the said wedlock, is in the care and custody of the applicant. In fact, it is submitted that on account of the matrimonial dispute, the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent, which is pending in the Courts at Baghapurana, District Moga. Since the applicant is living at Canada, it will be difficult for her father, who is her attorney-holder, to pursue the said litigation, as there is threat extended to him, at the instance of the respondent and therefore, the attorney-holder is being obstructed to pursue the divorce petition at Baghapurana. Thus, a prayer for transfer of the divorce petition has been made.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent, though has not filed the reply, but he submits that no such threat was extended to the attorney-holder of the applicant, at the instance of the respondent. In fact, it is submitted that even if, the father of the applicant feels that there is such threat, he always has an option to knock the door of the authorities concerned, to redress the grievance.

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that the applicant herself, is not residing at SBS Nagar and she is residing at Canada, along with her daughter. The transfer application has been filed through the attorney-holder, who is her father. Even though, it is asserted about there to be a threat, for not allowing to pursue the divorce petition at

 Baghapurana, but however, the allegations are quite vague. Even if, there is a fear of threat, at the instance of the respondent, but the attorney-holder of the applicant, who is her father, always has an option, to knock the door of the authorities concerned and seek appropriate remedy. But anyhow, in view of the vague assertion coming forth, no case is made out for allowing the application.

Hence, the transfer application is hereby dismissed. (ARCHANA PURI) 13.02.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No