Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Convenience of the Wife a Major Concern”: Punjab and Haryana High Court Allows Transfer of Matrimonial Case to Faridkot

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court permitted the transfer of a matrimonial dispute case from the Family Court in Dera Bassi to Faridkot. The ruling comes as a relief to the petitioner-wife, Ravneet Kaur, who cited substantial inconvenience due to the distance between the two locations.

Presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, the High Court observed, “It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, convenience of the wife.”

The decision was made after considering several factors, including the family condition of the wife, her economic situation, and physical health. The Court was also guided by the principle that “Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”

The Court further added, “Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

The judgement cited three significant Supreme Court decisions, including Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, and N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, to back its ruling.

As part of the conditions for the transfer, both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court in Faridkot within one month from today. The Court also encouraged exploration of amicable resolution through the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

The respondent-husband, Sumit Kumar, is granted liberty to contest this decision provided he meets specific conditions like clearing any arrears in maintenance and contributing towards the litigation expenses of the petitioner.

Date of decision: 11.09.2023

Ravneet Kaur vs Sumit Kumar  

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Ravneet_Kaur_vs_Sumit_Kumar_on_11_September_2023_PH_HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News