Sonika Gandas vs Sachin Gandas
2015 Latest Caselaw 324 Del

$ -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.

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

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