Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Pritam Kumari@ Beenu vs Manoj Shekhar Singh

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 9 December 2019 · Citation: (2019) 12 SC CK 0196

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Banumathi, J · A.S. Bopanna, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 354A, 377, 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Transfer Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 2002 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 459 words
1.

The petitioner-wife is before this Court seeking transfer of the divorce petition bearing H.M.A. NO.47 of 2016 titled "Manoj Shekhar Singh v. Pritam Kumari" filed by the respondent-husband pending consideration before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini, Delhi, to the Family Court, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.

2.

In the instant petition notice was ordered to the respondent who has appeared and filed the counter affidavit. We have perused the averments made in the instant petition, counter affidavit and heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Sewa Ram, learned counsel appearing for the respondenthusband, while objecting to the transfer has inter alia contended that the transfer presently sought to the Court at Jamshedpur, is not bona fide inasmuch as the petitioner-wife is residing at Gurugram and has initiated the proceedings against the respondent under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354-A and 377 I.P.C. in the jurisdictional Magistrate's court at Gurugram. In addition to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent has also produced a certified copy of the deposition in the said proceedings recorded on 26.09.2019 wherein the petitioner-wife has admitted that she is even at present residing at Gurugram. He, therefore, contends that the transfer as sought by the petitioner-wife cannot be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Lal Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, has disputed the same pointing out that presently the petitioner-wife is not residing at Gurugram.

3.

The fact that the petitioner-wife has filed the proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the same is pending consideration in the competent Court at Gurugram cannot be in dispute inasmuch as a reference is made to that aspect to the transfer petition itself.

4.

If that be the position, since the petitioner-wife is pursuing the said case at Gurugram, we find it appropriate that the divorce petition bearing H.M.A. NO.47 of 2016 titled "Manoj Shekhar Singh v. Pritam Kumari" pending consideration before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini, Delhi, instead of being transferred to the Court at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, be transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram, Haryana, for hearing and disposal in accordance with law so that all the litigations between the parties could be considered by that court. Ordered accordingly. The District Judge, Gurugram, Haryana, may try the case himself or assign the same to the Court competent to do so. Records shall be sent by Court where proceedings are pending to the transferee Court promptly and without any delay.

5.

In that view, the instant petition is accordingly allowed. On receipt of the case records, the transferee Court is directed to make all endeavour for amicable settlement, failing which for early decision in the cases expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.