Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to transfer the case from the court of learned Civil Judge, Sundernagar, to the court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Amar Dev Sharma, pleaded that the petitioner being a lady has to travel from Kullu to Sundernagar and undergo great hardships in the process. Also, she apprehends some untoward incident and danger to her life and liberty at Sundernagar. He placed reliance on Urvashi Rana v. Himanshu Nayyar, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 2460 stating that the convenience of the wife is required to be considered over and above the inconvenience of the husband.

The Court relied on Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 and held that the convenience of the wife is of prime consideration. Further, it is the duty of the Court to transfer the case if either of the parties feel that they are not likely to have a fair trial. The court also opined that the petitioner is unnecessarily being made to spend huge amount of money.

Taking into consideration, the fact that a petition under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can only be adjudicated by a Family Court and the jurisdiction of the matrimonial cases pertaining to Kullu District is with the Family Court at Mandi; the instant petition was allowed and the case was transferred to Kullu District Court. [Sunil Kaur v. Yashpal Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1398, decided on 30-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. made absolute the interim application for bail in a matrimonial case.

An application for anticipatory bail was made by the petitioner for the offence registered under Sections 323, 325, 326, 406, 506, 498-A, 34 of the Penal Code.

The facts of the case were that FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner’s wife wherein it was alleged that she was married to the petitioner and had a child from the wedlock. The petitioner and his family used to harass and beat her for no reason. It was also submitted that in-laws of the petitioner had retained all her jewellery articles.

Gautam Dutt, counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was some matrimonial discord between the parties the complainant herself caused injuries to the petitioner. It was further submitted that complainant is all out to wreak vengeance and went to the extent of leveling allegations of rape against the petitioner’s father which upon inquiry by police were found to be false.

Aditi Girdhar, counsel for the state submitted that one of the injuries found on the person of the complainant has been opined to be grievous injury attracting an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and that in these circumstances since the allegations stand substantiated, no case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out. It was informed that the alleged jewellery articles, as well as car, were recovered.

The court opined that as the petitioner had already joined the investigation and had got the articles of the dowry and thus petition was accepted and the interim directions by the court were made absolute subject to the condition that petitioner would appear before investigating officer and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the investigating officer.[Nitin Yadav v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 1480, decided on 19-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. dismissed a review application filed by the petitioner-husband for review of this Court’s order in a matrimonial case (pertaining to restitution of conjugal rights) whereby a direction was given to transfer records of the said case from this Court to the Family Court at Muzaffarpur (where the respondent-wife had filed a maintenance case against petitioner).

Counsel for the petitioner, Vivekanand Prasad Singh submitted that while passing the impugned order, this Court was not properly assisted by the appearing for petitioner earlier and that no contention was raised at the bar on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was presently posted at Mumbai and while it would be convenient for him to visit Patna on the date fixed in the matter, if he is required to go Muzaffarpur he would be required to take one additional leave.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, Arvind Kumar Pandey and  Jitendra Prasad Singh, objected stating that the impugned order had been passed in the interest of both parties for the restoration of their conjugal rights.

The Court noted that the respondent had a one-year-old daughter and had no male member in the family to accompany her to visit this Court for hearings in the matrimonial case. Petitioner had himself filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights and during the course of arguments, it was understood that the respondent was ready to receive him at her place with an intention to restore conjugal rights. Thus, this Court had considered it just and proper to transfer the records of the matrimonial case to the Court at Muzaffarpur with the view that if the petitioner visits Muzaffarpur where respondent-wife was residing with her parents, there was every possibility of restitution of conjugal rights. No opposition was recorded on behalf of the petitioner in the impugned order.

It was observed that if it was the petitioner’s intention to restore his relationship, the plea regarding requirement one additional leave for visiting Muzaffarpur could not be said to be a bona fide plea, especially in view of the hardships being faced by the wife.

The Court noted that the present review application had been filed by a change of lawyer, but no affidavit was filed showing the reason which necessitated a change of lawyer. It was observed that while considering a review application, it is important to see if an error has occurred because of mistake of the Court or for any other reason which is likely to cause injustice to a party, and correct the same. But a review filed merely because of change of lawyer must not be generally allowed. Reliance in this regard was placed on Rotary Club, Begusarai v. State of Bihar, 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 892 where the practice of filing review petition due to change of was deprecated.

In view of the above, it was held that no injustice had been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order.[Rishi Kesh Kumar v. Minakshi Kumari, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 587, decided on 30-04-2019]