Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KIRANDEEP KAUR versus MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kirandeep Kaur v. Mandeep Singh Dhillon - CM-20618-CII-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12005 (5 December 2006)

C.M. No.20618-CII of 2006 [1]

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.20618-CII of 2006

Date of decision : 15.12.2006.

Kirandeep Kaur .....Petitioner

versus

Mandeep Singh Dhillon .......Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Sidhu, 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, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Bathinda, to the Court of learned District Judge, Faridkot.

It has been pointed out that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.11.2001 at Faridkot and that the parties lived together and cohabited each other at Faridkot and that lateron both the parties shifted to Bathinda. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is working as Lecturer of Chemistry at Faridkot, whereas the respondent is transferred to Chandigarh and is working as Deputy Director in Technical Education and Industrial Training at Chandigarh.

Since none of the parties resides at Bathinda, therefore, the petitioner has sought transfer of the petition to the Court at Faridkot where she is residing and marriage was solemnized.

C.M. No.20618-CII of 2006 [2]

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that even respondent is not residing at Bathinda, I deem it appropriate to transfer the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as Mandeep Singh Dhillon versus Kirandeep Kaur, pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Bathinda, to the Court of learned District Judge, Faridkot. It shall be open to the learned District Judge, Faridkot 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, Faridkot on 19.1.2007, for further proceedings.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

December 15, 2006 JUDGE

*mohinder

C.M. No.20618-CII of 2006 [3]

Present : Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent.

* * *

Reply on behalf of respondent has been filed in the Court today.

The same is taken on record.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

December 15, 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.