Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DAILYLAW 3899 (DEL)

Harpal Singh v. Sonia Singh

2015-07-10

V K Shali

body2015
Judgment V.K. Shali, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the CPC for transfer of HMA No.1160/2014 titled Harpal Singh vs. Sonia Singh pending in the court of Sh. Pradeep Chadha, Principal Judge, Family Courts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to Family Court, Rohini (North-West District). 2. The ground for transfer of this petition to Rohini courts, North-West district given by the petitioner in the petition is two-fold. It has been stated that firstly there are two cases which are pending in the district court, Rohini. The first case is pertaining to enhancement of maintenance under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending in the court of Ms. Shilpi Jain, Metropolitan Magistrare, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It has been further stated that so far as the second case is concerned, that is a criminal case initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant under Section 498-A/406 IPC pending in the court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrare, Rohini Courts. It has been stated that the petitioner is intending to prove the records of both these cases in his divorce petition which is pending in Karkardooma Court and it will be much convenient for him to summon the said record if it is transferred to Rohini court. It has also been stated that the petitioner is a resident of Jaipur and therefore, instead of appearing in different courts in Delhi, he would be required to appear only in one court at district Rohini and therefore, he has reiterated his prayer for transfer of the divorce petition filed by him to district court Rohini. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. Though no formal reply has been filed; however, he has addressed the arguments opposing the prayer of the petitioner. It has been contended by him that the petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner himself on a false ground of cruelty in district Karkardooma when he was living within the jurisdiction of the said court. It has been further stated that he has been since transferred back from Jaipur to Delhi and is again living in the jurisdiction of district court, Karkardooma, therefore, there is absolutely no justification of transferring the case which is pending in district court, Karkardooma to district court, Rohini. It has been further stated that he has been since transferred back from Jaipur to Delhi and is again living in the jurisdiction of district court, Karkardooma, therefore, there is absolutely no justification of transferring the case which is pending in district court, Karkardooma to district court, Rohini. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that the two cases on the basis of which he wants the divorce case to be transferred to district court, Rohini are totally unconnected inasmuch as those two cases of which reference is given by the petitioner are pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while as the case which is sought to be transferred will have to be heard by the learned Family Judge, District Rohini, therefore, the forums are not going to be the same. It has also been stated that the petitioner can summon the record from district Rohini to Karkardooma and there is no impediment in this regard to prove the same. 4. In addition to this, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the entire exercise which has been initiated by the petitioner is only to ensure that the respondent is harassed. It is stated by him that the respondent has already engaged a counsel at district court, Karkardooma and paid the entire fees and in case, the matter, which has been filed by the petitioner for divorce, is transferred from district court Karkardooma to district court Rohini, she will be required to engage a fresh counsel and consequently, it would mean further financial constraint on her resources when she has no independent source of income. Accordingly, he has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. I find prima facie considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, he has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. I find prima facie considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The two cases which are pending in district court, Rohini are pending in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and even if the case which has been sought to be transferred is shifted from district court Karkardooma to district court Rohini, it will be heard and tried by the Principal Family Judge at district court Rohini and admittedly it will not be before the same judge before whom the case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is pending for want of jurisdiction or the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and cannot be tried by them for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, this plea of the petitioner for transfer is of no merit. 6. In addition to this, the point which has been taken by the petitioner that it will be much convenient for him to summon the record to prove his case for cruelty is also of no consequence. The evidence in the case of the petitioner is yet to be recorded. The petitioner has not been able to show what is the record which he wants to prove from these two courts where the matters are pending and even if it is assumed that some record which is pending in these two courts is to be proved by the petitioner, he can always either summon the record through the record keeper or can place the certified copies of such orders or the proceedings on the record of the Principal Family Judge, which can be duly considered by the court which is hearing the divorce matter. Therefore, the plea which is taken by the petitioner does not seem to be genuine, credible and a sincere one. 7. I find prima facie merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the entire exercise of transferring the present case from the district court Karkardooma to district court Rohini may be actuated by requiring the respondent to spend money fresh on account of engaging of a new counsel. 8. There is absolutely no merit in the transfer petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.