Suchita v. Manjeet Jaglan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.235 TA-1366-2024 Date of Decision: 27.01.2025

 ....Applicant

Versus

 .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:- Mr. Shobhit Rapria, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

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

 

    

             

  !"#$#%&  
 



'(  

' &    )*(  &+       *     * 

,    

-      & 

* 

   
    

'*    



  (& & 

      

 .     

    /(    &  t is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 12.02.2010. Two sons were born from the said wedlock, the elder son is about 13 years old and the younger one is 11 years old. The elder son is in the care and cutody of the respondent, whereas, the younger son is in the

 care and custody of the applicant. Also, it is submitted that on account of the matrimonial discord, the parties are residing separate. The police complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed, at first instance, by the applicant, against the respondent, on the basis whereof, FIR was got registered in Sonipat, after filing of the present application. Furthermore, it is submitted that the applicant has filed the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act i.e. COMA/153/2024, as well as the petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 i.e. MNT/158/2024, which are pending in the Courts at Sonipat and the respondent is contesting both the said petitions. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is unemployed and has no means to maintain herself and the minor son. In these circumstances, it is submitted that it is difficult for her to commute a distance of about 70 kilometres, to defend the divorce petition, more particularly, while not having any source of earning and taking care of the school-going child.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent has refuted the claim for transfer of the divorce petition. In fact, he submits that the applicant can very well join the proceedings, if so required, through video conferencing. As such, he submits that the application be dismissed. In view of the submissions aforesaid, on query by the Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has still not joined the proceedings in the divorce petition, pending at Panipat. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute and also considering

 the fact about the applicant not having any source of earning, more particularly, when she is required to engage the counsel at Panipat, the transfer application is allowed and                      !"#$#%&    
  

 

    '(     

' &        *   )*(  &+  &     * 

,    

0    '

'( )*(  & +  &       1& 

.      1&  &        )*(  & 

2/ &     ' )*(  &  &    *

*

(



(ARCHANA PURI) 27.01.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No