High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunita vs Satender

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 5 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 08 P&H CK 0329

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaswant Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24 · Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13, 9 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
TA 715 of 2012 (O and M)
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

4 paragraphs · 358 words

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner wife has filed the present transfer application u/s 24 CPC for the transfer of petition filed by respondent husband u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") titled Satender Vs. Sunita from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani to the court of competent jurisdiction at Jind. It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8.3.2006 at Village Jakholi, District Jind. Out of the said wedlock no child was born. Due to dowry demand, it is alleged that the petitioner was turned out of the matrimonial home at Bhiwani. Petitioner is stated to be residing separately at her parental home at Jind since May 2011, where she has filed three proceedings namely, (1) petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (ii) Petition under the Domestic Violence Act and (iii) FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC.

2.

Thereafter, the respondent husband filed a petition u/s 9 of the Act which, as noticed above, is pending in the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani.

3.

It is averred that the petitioner wife is a house wife, has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her parents while the respondent is not paying even a single penny for the upkeep and maintenance of petitioner wife and in these circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent husband at Bhiwani, which is far away from Jind.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the grounds set out in the petition are sufficient to allow the petition as it is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband against wife, convenience of wife must be looked at. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, . In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, the petition u/s 13 of the Act titled Satender Vs. Sunita from the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Courts, Jind for disposal in accordance with law from the stage of withdrawal.