NEELAM Vs. ANIL KUMAR BHAMBRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, physically and financially handicapped who has also to rear up a child of tender years seeks transfer of a petition filed by her husband Anil Kumar under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights from the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pategarh Sahib to any of the Court! competent to try the matter at Hoshiarpur.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was lolemoised in the year 1985 and ai pleaded, the petitioner was treated most shabbily and for the first time turned out from the house in June 1988. She stayed with her father tilt June 1989. After living with her husband for some time in the year 1989, she had to come back to her father at Hoshiarpur where she remained upto June 1991. No effort at any given time was ever made by the respondent to change bis earlier treatment and rehabilitate her. In May, 1991, the petitioner even implored the Punjab Istri Sabha to intervene in the matter go that she could be restored to her matrimonial home to live there in peace. The efforts of Punjab Istri Sabha succeeded although temporarily, inasmuch as, she lived with her husband for a small period of one month, the respondent thereafter took to his old ways thus, constraining the petitioner to once again seek shelter under the roof of her father. Some time prior to the filing of petition by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act i. e. 9-6-1992, the petitioner applied for maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the respondent was served in the aforesaid case, he applied for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner had even filed a complaint against him Under Sections 406/498 I. P. C. Both the aforesaid cases i. a. the one filed Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the other filed under Sections 406/498 IPC are pending at Hoshiarpur whereas the respondent filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights at Fatehgarh Sahib which is stated to be 200 Kilometres away from Hoshiarpur.

(3.) NOTICE of thin transfer application was given to the respondent on October 22, 1992. The respondent was served and on request made by the counsel engaged by him, the case adjourned to November 11, 1992. No reply was filed on the adjourned date and on request made by the counsel for the respondent, once again the case was adjourned to November 25. 1992 but no reply was filed. On November 25, 1992 the case was once again adjourned to November 26, 1992 i. e. today. Even today reply has not been filed and the prayer made by the counsel for tha respondent for further adjourning the case is found to be wholly unjustified and, therefore, the same is rejected.