Smt. Swaranjit Kaur vs Lt. Col. Avtar Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent is the husband of the petitioner. The marriage between the parties took place on 4-10-1989 as per the say of both the counsel. The marriage had taken place after the death of first wife of the respondent. The son of the respondent is serving in Merchant Navy and son-in-law of respondent is serving in police. The respondent has filed a case for divorce against the petitioner which is pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. The petitioner wants to get the case transferred to Yamuna Nagar because she fears danger to her life from respondent''s son and son-in-law and she has filed this petition.

Notice of this petition was issued and the respondent appeared and filed the written statement. Respondent has contested the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that whenever the petitioner goes to Karnal her life is in danger. According to him, the son and son-in-law of the respondent were from the beginning inimical to the petitioner and, therefore, when she goes to contest the case at Karnal, she is threatened.To show the enmity, the petitioner has quoted an earlier F.I.R. given by the respondent on 14-9-1995 in paragraph 4 of the petition. It reads as under :--

"I contacted Court marriage second time with Smt. Swaranjit Kaur in the year 1990. Swaranjit Kaur had two minor children from her previous husband and they stay with me.

During the month of July, 94 I, my wife and children were sleeping in my house. At about 12.30 in the night my son Jaspal Singh and my son-in-law Ravinder Singh accompanied by 2-3 friends came at my house by car. My son-in-law is a senior officer in police. His body guard was also with him.

On enquiring of their late coming I was told that there was traffic jam in the road. On asking about their food I was told that they have already taken their dinner. My son-in-law Ravinder Singh by going near the Charpal of my wife called her to get up. She asked him the reason for this. On hearing my son-in-law pushed my wife to the ground and twisted her arms and pulled her towards me. I got up and asked him not to do such things by being helpless could not do anything. My wife was crying to spare her and her children from beating and she will go. He further threatened that in case she does not abandon this house, they will come again. Thereafter my son & son-in-law left the place by car. After some time my son, his wife and my daughter started visiting my home but my son-in-law did not visit me thereafter."

At that time, the respondent had tried to protect the petitioner.

Counsel for the respondent argued that the FIR was given in the year 1995 and the divorce proceedings have been initiated in the year 1997 and, therefore, the facts stated in the FIR are of no relevance. On the contrary, it goes to show that the respondents was helping the petitioner.

Regarding the danger that the petitioner is apprehending, the petitioner has produced Annexure P-2, which is an application given to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal and Superintendent of Police, Karnal on 16-10-1997 and also an application dated 5-11-1998 given to the Suprintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, for the alleged Incident of 4-11 -1998.

So far as Annexure P-2 is concerned, it is pertaining to some incident which had taken place at the house of the petitioner, that means at Yamuna Nagar. In the complaint Annexure P-3, the petitioner has mentioned that on 13-11-1998, the case was fixed in the trial Court and she felt that there was a threat to her and that to her childern.

Respondent has denied the contentions and on the other hand pleaded that he is an old man and is suffering from disease. He has produced a certificate along with his written statement. It is as under :--

This is to certify that Lt. Col. A.S. Mann is suffering from Reflux Oesophagitis with Hiatus Hernia with Cataract (LE). He has been operated for the Cataract on 28th June 99. He is on regular medication & follow up in the hospital. Hence he is advised periodic review & restricted movement,"

The Recording of evidence of the respondent has been completed. The evidence of the petitioner is yet to start. The counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioner has mentioned that there was evidence of 13-11-1998 and that the incident was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police by an application dated 5-11-1998.

It appears that there is some mistake regarding the dates. However, the question of transfer has to be considered from the circumstances as appear from the petition and the evidence produced by the parties. It is true that the respondent is suffering from the disease as mentioned above. He is an old man. At the same time ,there is an allegation by the petitioner that she had threats from the son and son-in-law of the respondent. The earlier FIR lodged by the respondent has been quoted by the petitioner just to show the bias of the son and son-in-law of the respondent against the petitioner which was in the year 1995 also. The incident might have been taken place in the year 1995 but that cannot mean that the bias has now ceased. It has to be seen that the petitioner is contesting the divorce petition filed by the respondent. Naturally, the son and son-in-law of the respondent, who are against the petitioner, will be interested that she does not defend the case.

As mentioned earlier, the evidence of the respondent is over and the evidence of the petitioner is yet to start. Considering all the facts of the case together, I find that the case deserves to be transferred.

The question now is at which Court the case should be transferred. The counsel for the petitioner states that the case may be transferred to Yamuna Nagar while counsel for the respondent states that Yamuna Nagar will not be convenient because the respondent''s counsel, who is appearing in the case in the trial Court, is from Delhi. Considering the difficulties of both the parties, it will be proper to transfer the case to the Court of District Judge, Ambala, which will be convenient for both the parties.

As a result, this petition is allowed. The divorce petition filed by the respondent, pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Ambala, who may himself conduct the case or within fifteen days of the receipt of the copy of this order, transfer the same to any Additional District Judge at Ambala.