Smt. Sonia vs Rajnish Kumar Arora

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this application u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayer made by Sonia wife of Rajnish Arora is that petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled ''Rajnish Kumar Arora v. Sonia Arora'' pending in the court of Shri P.S. Bajaj, Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana, be transferred to any court to competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.

Petitioner Sonia, was married with Rajnish Kumar Arora, respondent, as per Hindu rites on 23.11.1991. Out of the wedlock, two children, one son and a daughter, were born on 16.10.1992 and 8.2.1994 respectively. Her husband, Rajnish Arora filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Ludhiana, alleging that she had left the matrimonial home without any cause on 28.6.1995. It is the common case of the parties that while petition u/s 9 of the Act was pending, there was some reconciliation between the parties and as a result of that, petitioner came to her matrimonial home and stayed there from 10.9.1995 to 5.1.199.6. This has so been averred in para 4 of the application. It has also been averred that once again she was turned out from the matrimonial home alongwith children after being given serious beatings and in fact the respondent tried to kill the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed an application u/s 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself and her two minor-children and that application is pending in the court of Shri B.S. Mangat, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. It has been averred that petitioner has no source of income and her father is a poor man doing private job and is providing maintenance and shelter to the petitioner and her children with great difficulty. It has also been stated that petitioner is unable to visit Ludhiana to attend the hearing of the case alongwith the minor children, whereas respondent is running a chemist shop along with his brother at Ludhiana and his father is running business of tea merchant. It has thus, been prayed that petition u/s 9 of the Act pending in the Court of Sh. -P.S. Bajaj, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.

Written statement has been filed by the respondent in which he has denied that he tried to kill the petitioner and she left the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment meted out at his hands. Counsel for the respondent for opposing the prayer made in the present petition, has contended that a sum of Rs. 3000/- has been awarded as litigation expenses and Rs. 600/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and that amount is sufficient for the petitioner to defend the petition filed by the respondent at Ludhiana. In this regard, he has placed on record order dated 29.1.1997 passed on the application filed by the wife u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for respondent, I am of the considered view that petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act deserves to be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar. Since the petitioner is to look after two minor children; one aged 5 years and another 2-1/2 years and her father is an employee in a private shop, it would not be possible for her to defend the petition u/s 9 of the Act filed by the husband. As the application u/s 125 Cr. P. C. is pending in the Court at Amritsar and respondent is appearing in that petition, no serious prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent if he also appears in his petition u/s 9 on it being transferred to that district.

Faced with this situation, counsel for respondent by placing reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Dasrath Prasad and Others Vs. Catholic Charities and Others , contended that in such like circumstances, as have been pointed out by the petitioner in her application, the prayer of transferring the petition was declined by the Apex Court. I have carefully gone through the judgment and find that the facts in that case were totally different to what have been projected in this petition. In the case before the Apex Court, the husband was a medical practitioner and had to support his ailing mother. The Apex Court found that in case the petition is transferred to Gujarat, then his practice would suffer, besides the fact that he is to look after her ailing mother. In the present case, respondent is working in a chemist shop owned by his brother and thus, will have no problem to go to Amritsar. Accordingly, petition u/s 9 of the Act titled as Rajnish Kumar Arora v. Sonia Arora, pending in the court of Shri P.S. Bajaj, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, shall stand transferred to the court of District Judge, Amritsar, who may keep the same with himself or entrust it to any other Court competent to try the same. Respondent shall be at liberty to move the Court at Amritsar for reduction of the amount of litigation expenses which have been fixed at Rs. 3000/-.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before District Judge, Amritsar, on 4.3.1997. Meanwhile, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, shall send the file of the petition u/s 9 of the Act pending in his Court, to the District Judge, Amritsar. CM stands disposed of accordingly.