TA 380 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH
TA 380 of 2008
Date of decision: 7.9.2009
Gurmeet Kaur
Petitioner
vs
Malak Singh and another
Respondent
Present Mr. DS Gurna, Advocate
Mr.Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioner is defendant No.2 in a case filed by respondent
No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Jagadhri seeking a declaration that
plaintiff- respondent No.1 is entitled to the maturity amount along with
interest lying deposited with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Mustfabad in the
shape of FDR in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant No.2. The plaintiff
claims that the amount deposited with the bank was received by him after
the sale of 41 kanals 16 marlas of land vide registered sale deed dated
31.5.2004, whereas the petitioner-defendant No.2 claims that the said
amount had been given to her by her parents.
The petitioner seeks the transfer of the said suit from Jagadhri
to a court of competent jurisdiction at Rajpura. The petitioner claims that a
petition u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
titled Gurmeet Kaur vs Malak and another filed by her is pending at
Rajpura and that the same is being contested by respondent No.1 and has
TA 380 of 2008 2
been granted interim maintenance vide order dated 19.7.2008.
The application has been opposed by the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 contending that the present petition for transfer has been filed by the
petitioner merely to harass the respondent. Learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has further contended that the conduct of the petitioner
during the pendency of the transfer application has not been fair as the
parties were directed to appear before this court but the petitioner had
been avoiding appearance. The respondent had offered permanent
alimony and maintenance for the child to seek dissolution of the marriage
but the petitioner had been avoiding appearance in the court. Even a cost
of Rs.3000/- was imposed on the petitioner on 21.5.2009 for deliberately
avoiding the appearance before the court. She has not even paid the said
amount to the respondent. When the petitioner’s counsel was asked to
instruct his client to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-, as ordered by this court, he
stated that the respondent No.1 has not been paying the maintenance to
her and that she has got no resources to pay the costs.
Without entering into the controversy regarding the conduct of
the petitioner, it is sufficient to observe that the convenience of the litigant
parties is one of the main considerations while deciding the application for
transfer. There appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner
and respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed a suit for maintenance at
Rajpura and the respondent is appearing in the said case at Rajpura. No
doubt transferring of the suit for declaration and injunction, filed by the
respondent from Jagadhri to Rajpura will be inconvenient to the respondnet
but considering the comparative inconvenience of both the parties, in the
interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the suit filed by
TA 380 of 2008 3
respondent No.1 titled Malak Singh vs. Punjab and Sind Bank,
Mustfabad and another, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.D.)
Jagadhri to Rajpuria. The file, complete in all respects, will be sent to the
court at Rajpura, where the petitioner has filed a petition u/s 18 and 20
of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act titled Gurmeet Kaur vs
Malak and another by 24.10.2009. The parties are directed to appear
before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.D), Rajpura on 24.10.2009.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
September 7 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE