NAVNEET KAUR Vs. CAPTAIN A.P.S. SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prays for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband against the petitioner-wife pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh to a court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The principal ground pleaded by the petitioner-wife is that she has initiated proceedings against the respondent-husband under Sections 406/498- A/120-B IPC and the trial is going on in the court at Jalandhar. She has further averred that the respondent-husband has tried to threaten and terrorise her by physical maltreatment with the help of some gunda elements and she would be disfigured. Therefore, it has become impossible for her to attend the hearing at Chandigarh.

(2.) THE respondent-husband in his reply has stoutly opposed the assertions made by the petitioner-wife and has alleged that it is only a ploy to delay the divorce proceedings which are at final stage and the case is fixed for 6.6.2003 for arguments. The respondent-husband has produced in his reply various interlocutory orders of the learned Additional District Judge from the date of appearance in March, 1998 and thereafter to show that the conduct of the petitioner-wife is not credible. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of those orders would show that she has to be proceeded ex parte on 10.1.2001, 18.3.2003 and 22.5.2003. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner-wife has been attending hearings without demur since March, 1999 and there has been no obstruction ever caused to her by the respondent-husband. The learned counsel has however pointed out that in any case the posting of the respondent-husband in the sensitive defence area does not permit him to attend the court often. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the reply, the learned counsel has urged that the respondent- husband attended the hearing on the date of reconciliation, then on 21.12.2000, 23.5.2002 and 7.8.2002 when his statement was recorded and he concluded his evidence. The learned counsel has further submitted that from January, 2000 to January, 2002 he remained posted at China Border in Himachal Pradesh, from February, 2002 to December, 2002, he was posted at Rajasthan Border fighting with the army of Pakistan in operation 'Parakarm' and from January, 2003 he is posted at Bangalore. Therefore, it is impossible for the respondent-husband to attend the court or give any threat to the petitioner- wife. The allegations according to the learned counsel are absolutely false.