Veena Rani vs Parvinder Kumar

A.L. Bahri, J.—Veena Rani, the wife, has filed application u/s 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC for transfer of a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by Parvinder Kumar against her in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ropar.

In July 1987, Veena Rani filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of interim maintenance against Parvinder Kumar in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ambala City. She also lodged First Information Report in July 1987 with the Police under Sections 406, 498A and some other provisions of the Indian Penal Code against Parvinder Kumar and his other relations. The petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband in September 1989. It is alleged by the wife that she apporehends threat to her life at the hands of the husband if she would attend the Court at Ropar.

Although provisions of Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act may not be attracted to the case in hand and provisions of Section 24 of the C.P.C. would be applicable, it is not convenience of one of the parties which is to be considered but convenience of both the parties in the matter of transfer of cases. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the transfer of the case from Ropar to Ambala, in the circumstances, would not be justified. Since July 1987, the two cases instituted by the wife are pending at Ambala but without any substantial progress. The husband and his relations who are accused in the criminal case are attending the Court on the dates fixed but there is no progress as it is stated at the Bar that the Courts at Ambala are not functioning on account of strike by the lawyers. Be that as it may, no useful purpose would be achieved if the divorce petition is also transferred to Ambala and kept in the storage when there is no progress in the cases. Furthermore, the husband, as is alleged, is already suffering as he and his relations are to appear in person as accused. If third case is also sent to Ambala, he will have to appear in all the three cases at Ambala, As far as evidence in the divorce petition is concerned, obviously, witnesses from Ropar are to be produced by the husband. Wife may also produce some witnesses from Ropar, otherwise she herself has to appear or her close relations can appear. The primary object is to expeditiously dispose of the cases and this object can be achieved if petition u/s 13 is allowed to continue at Ropar.

No incident was referred by the wife where any threat was given by the husband to deter her from appearing at Ropar. General allegations levelled cannot be acted upon.

For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. No costs.