Punjab & Haryana HC- The petition for restitution of conjugal rights and for dissolution of marriage could not be decided in two different Courts.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
TA No. XXX of 2011
Date of decision August 21, 2012
XXXXXXXXX ……. Petitioner
XXXXXXXXXX …….. Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The petition is filed at the instance of the husband for transfer of matrimonial proceedings started by the wife in the Court at Kurukshetra under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that there is yet another petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed under Section 9 which is pending in the Court at Panipat. On an earlier plea by the wife for transferring the proceedings from the Court at Panipat to Kurukshetra this Court has rejected the claim of the wife attributing that her conduct did not deserve the prayer that she was asking for. The petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner is keeping the children and both of them are of tender in age and it would be inconvenient to transfer the case to be tried in\some other Court.
2. At the previous date of hearing this Court had directed the petitioner to bring the children to Court and also made observation that the wife was also at liberty to come to Court and claim their custody. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that she is not in a position to claim the children for custody at present. Even apart from the question of convenience when the petitioner is holding custody of the children, I would find that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and for dissolution of marriage could not be decided in two different Courts. They are to be taken up by the very same Court to adjudicate the rights of the parties. Counsel for the respondent states that she is apprehensive about going to Panipat since the husband is giving threats to her that he will teach her a lesson. The wife and the husband have learnt enough lessons by their separation. I do not think there should be a fresh lesson to be taught. They will exercise restraint and not indulge in any act that will cause apprehension for the safety of one by the other. The respondent is at liberty to approach the Court and inform of any difficulty that she faces in orderly conduct of the trial. The application for transfer is allowed.
3. The case which is pending before the Court at Kurukshetra initiated by the wife is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Court at Panipat. The parties shall bring to the notice of the Court the pendency of application for conjugal rights and the Court will take up both the cases for joint disposal.
4. At every hearing when the wife turns up in Court the petitioner shall pay `500/- towards transportation charges. This shall be independent of any application for maintenance that the wife might have against the husband. The trial Court shall ensure strict compliance of the directions for transportation expenses as provided above.
5. The parties shall appear before the Court at Panipat on 12.9.2012.
August 21, 2012