Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANPREET @ BABITA @ DINKEY versus RAM RATTAN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manpreet @ Babita @ Dinkey v. Ram Rattan - CM-15211-CII-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 11556 (30 November 2006)

C.M. No.15211-CII OF 2006. {1}

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.15211-CII OF 2006.

Date of decision : 1.12.2006.

Manpreet @ Babita @ Dinkey ........Petitioner versus

Ram Rattan .......Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.J.S.Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

* * *

ORDER

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has sought transfer of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and pending in the Court of Sh.S.K.Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra.

It has been pointed out that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2000 as per Hindu Rites at Kurukshetra and one child was born premature out of the said wedlock on 8.5.2002, who died on 21.5.2002. The petitioner was treated with cruelty and was turned out of her matrimonial home on 16.1.2003. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which an FIR stands lodged at Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Earlier, the petitioner filed an application for grant of maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is pending in the Court at Kurukshetra.

C.M. No.15211-CII OF 2006. {2}

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra, as the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Kurukshetra and the litigation between the parties is pending at that place. Thus, it shall be appropriate that the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kurukshetra.

In view of the above, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled as Ram Rattan versus Smt.Manpreet @ Babita @ Dinkey, pending in the Court of Sh.S.K.Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh is transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. It shall be open to the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra to entrust the said petition to a court of competent jurisdiction.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Kurukshetra on 22.12.2006, for further proceedings.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

December 1, 2006 JUDGE

*mohinder


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.