T.A.No.247 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A.No.247 of 2009 Date of Decision : 14.10.2009 Neha Bansal @ Savina Rani ...Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Kathuria, Advocate, for the respondent. 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 (for short 'the Act') and pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.1.2009 and the respondent-husband has sought dissolution of marriage even prior to the expiry of one year. As per the respondent, he has sought permission to file the said petition before the expiry of one year by moving an application under Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner has alleged that her parents had spent more than Rs.7 lac and had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage, but the respondent and his family members were not happy and satisfied with the same. They harassed and taunted the petitioner for bringing T.A.No.247 of 2009 2 insufficient dowry. Demands of dowry were raised and since the petitioner and her family members did not fulfil the same, the petitioner was turned out of the house. The petitioner had lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the respondent and his family members before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal and an FIR is now pending against the respondent. It is pointed out that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Kaithal, her elder brother is married and living separately at Gurgaon and that she is not possessed of sufficient means to contest the petition at Chandigarh. In reply, the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been denied. It is pointed out that the mother of the petitioner is well educated lady, who can accompany the petitioner at Chandigarh, whenever the personal appearance of the petitioner would be required. The father of the petitioner can also accompany her. The respondent has also averred that he is ready to bear the travelling expenses of the petitioner whenever she would be required for personal appearance in the Court at Chandigarh. It is also pointed out that the father of the respondent is 100% blind whereas his mother is paralytic patient. Thus, the petition under Section 13 of the Act does not warrant any transfer to Kaithal. The petitioner has already lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, which is pending before the competent Court at Kaithal. It is the assertion of the petitioner that she is not possessed of sufficient means to contest the petition at Chandigarh. In fact, the respondent has stated in his reply that he is ready to bear the T.A.No.247 of 2009 3 travelling expenses of the petitioner. It, thus, transpires that the respondent is man of sufficient means and thus, in stead of commuting of the petitioner to Chandigarh, the respondent himself can commute to Kaithal to attend the proceedings at Kaintal. Since the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Kaithal even though the father of the respondent was blind and mother was paralytic. Therefore, such physical disability were not a deterent for solemnization of marriage at Kaithal. Thus, at this stage, such physical disability should not deter the respondent to contest the petition at Kaithal. In view thereof, under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent and pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh is transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Kaithal. It shall be open to the learned District Judge, Kaithal to entrust the petition to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the transferee Court on 11.11.2009 for further proceedings. 14.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE