Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Prioritizes Women’s Convenience in Matrimonial Case Transfers: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, with HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN presiding, delivered a verdict on October 16, 2023, emphasizing the convenience of female litigants in the transfer of matrimonial cases. The case in question involved a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking the transfer of proceedings from the Family Court in Amritsar to the Camp Court Patti in Tarn Taran.

The judgement recognized the petitioner’s claim that the minor girl child was in her custody and highlighted the complexities of the case, including the registration of FIR No.66 dated 05.06.2023, which invoked Sections 498-A, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite attempted mediation, the proceedings had encountered difficulties due to the respondent’s uncooperative behavior.

The Court underscored the need to consider the economic soundness, social strata, and convenience of the wife in cases involving the transfer of matrimonial disputes. It was observed, “The prevailing socio-economic paradigm in Indian society dictates that it is the wife’s convenience that must be looked at while considering transfer.”

Furthermore, the judgement highlighted the importance of transferring cases that involve common questions of fact and law between the same parties. The Court stressed the desirability of trying such cases together to prevent multiplicity in trial and conflicts of decisions.

The decision was welcomed by legal experts and women’s rights advocates, citing the judgements in “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay” (2002) and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi” (2005) from the Supreme Court, which emphasized the convenience of female litigants in transfer matters.

The representing advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Lupil Gupta, expressed satisfaction with the outcome. “This judgement recognizes the importance of prioritizing the convenience and well-being of female litigants in matrimonial cases,” he stated.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the transfer petition, directing the transfer of the case to Camp Court Patti, Tarn Taran. The Court encouraged mediation and conciliation while imposing specific conditions on the respondent should he choose to contest the transfer.

This ruling sets a precedent for prioritizing the convenience and well-being of female litigants in matrimonial cases and aligns with the principles of justice and gender equality.

Date of Decision: 16.10.2023

Amandeep Kaur  vs Revail Singh             

         

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/16-Oct-23-Amandeep_Kaur_vs_Revail_Singh.pdf"]

Similar News