$ -21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 13th January, 2015
+ TR.P.(C) 20/2014 & CM.4637/2014
SONIKA GANDAS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma,
Advocate & Mr. Anuj Sharma,
Advocate
versus
SACHIN GANDAS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dagar, Advocate
for Mr. Ajay Dabas, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Petitioner who is wife of Respondent seeks transfer of petition HMA 471/2013 under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 preferred by the Respondent from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Saket to Family Court at Rohini.
TR.P.(C) 20/2014 Page 1 of 3
2. The only ground taken by the Petitioner is that the Respondent has not disclosed the correct address of the Petitioner. The Respondent was well aware that the Petitioner was living with her brother and aged mother at NS-10, G.F., Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi-110087 ever since 26.01.2012.
3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it is inconvenient for the Petitioner to attend to the Court at Saket as Saket Court Complex is at a distance of about 35 kms from the residence of the Petitioner.
4. I am not inclined to agree with the contention raised for several reasons. First, the distance between NS-10, G.F., Mianwali Nagar, New Delhi and the Saket Court Complex is not 35 kms; second, metro service is available in the territory of NCT of Delhi and there is a Metro Station close to Saket District Court Complex and; third, the Petitioner is not expected to attend the hearing on each and every date. It is the counsel who has to attend to the case on each and every date. A party is personally required to be present only when conciliation is to take place or evidence is to be recorded or when otherwise directed by the TR.P.(C) 20/2014 Page 2 of 3 Court.
5. The Petition is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
6. Pending application also stands disposed of.
7. This order is without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner to take appropriate pleas regarding jurisdiction of the Court which is trying HMA Petition no.471/2013.
(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 13, 2015 pst TR.P.(C) 20/2014 Page 3 of 3