Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/143/2017 on 27 December 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 143 of 2017
Decided on: 27.12.2017
Raveena
…Petitioner.
Versus
Navdeep Kumar Chhetri
…Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner:
Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For the respondent:
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore,
Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (Oral)
This petition has been filed for transferring the petition preferred by respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, on various grounds including that she is residing at Delhi and it is not manageable for her to
defend the petition effectively and properly in District Courts at Dharamshala.
2.
Respondent has contested the petition. In reply filed to the petition, contentions of the petitioner have been refuted in toto.
3.
It is undisputed that the parental place of the petitioner is at Nahan in District Sirmaur, native place of her inlaws is in Village Sidhpur near Dharamshala and the petitioner as well as the respondent, at present, are residing at Delhi. Further that the petitioner has also filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act against the respondent at Nahan, District Sirmaur.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon pronouncement of coordinate Bench of this Court in a case titled as Urvashi Rana versus Himanshu Nayyar, reported in Latest HLJ 2016 (HP) 925, wherein, after considering plethora of judgments, it has been held that in the proceedings arising out of the matrimonial discord, it is the convenience of the wife which has to be given preference
over the convenience of the husband. I find no reason to disagree with the ratio of law propounded in this judgment.
5.
Even otherwise, the respondent is residing at Delhi and is also facing a case under Domestic Violence Act at Nahan by engaging a lawyer at Nahan. It is also undisputed that Nahan is much nearer to Delhi in comparison to Dharamshala. Therefore, it would not only be convenient to the petitioner but to the respondent also to prosecute as well as defend the proceedings at one place, i.e.
Nahan, which is nearest to the parties from the place of their present residence.
6.
In view of above, present petition is allowed and accordingly, HMA Petition No. 332 of 2016, titled as Navdeep Kumar Chhetri versus Raveena, under Section 13
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, is ordered to be transferred to the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan.
7. Learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala is directed to transmit the record of the said case to the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, with immediate effect.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, on 20th January, 2018.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms alongwith all pending applications, if any. No order as to costs.
10. Registry to convey the order to the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge December 27, 2017 ( rajni )