SNEH LATA Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed at the Bar that virtually it is a case of broken marriage.

(2.) The Wife has initiated proceedings for the grant of maintenance for herself as well as for her two children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Similarly, proceedings for the return of dowry as well as criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, are pending against the respondent in Courts at Amritsar. The wife also preferred an application for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, In the Court of District Judge, Amritsar. The parties are living separately since 1983. The wife has got custody of the son as well as the daughter since 1983. However, for reasons best known to the husband, he in the year 1986 when the son was 4-1/2 years old, applied for his custody alone in the Court at Faridkot. It is not disputed that the husband is neither paying any maintenance to the wife and the children. This offer may or not be a ploy, without expressing any opinion on this offer of the husband and taking into consideration the large under of cases which the husband has to attend in the Courts at Amritsar, which were initiated much before the respondent preferred an application for custody of the male child at Faridkot. The ends of justice will be met if all the proceedings between the parties are tried at Amritsar.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance upon X v. Y & others, 1979 AIR(HP) 29and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Ram Krishan Hegde, 1990 AIR(SC) 113in order to strengthen his contention that it is the plaintiff who is dominus lis and he has a right to choose a particular forum for redressing his grievance. There is no dispute with this proposition but in my considered view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the hardship which the wife is likely to suffer along with her tow minor children, in defending the case filed by the husband at Faridkot, and particularly, the fact that the husband has paid nothing towards maintenance of the wife and children, rather sought custody of the male child which is nothing else but a step to bring pressure on the wife to give up her children.