Reena Seraik @ Aaradhya vs Sulabh Chhabra
2022 Latest Caselaw 2283 P&H

222   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                 AT CHANDIGARH


                                      TA-1179-2021
                                      Date of decision: 30.03.2022


Reena Seraik @ Aaradhya                                    ...........Petitioner



                                  versus



Sulabh Chhabra                                             .......Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH

Present: Mr. Gulzar Mohammed, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.

Through this invocation the applicant/petitioner/wife-

Reena Seraik @ Aaradhya has come up with this petition under

Section 24 of CPC for transfer of case bearing No.HMA-34/2021

titled as 'Sulabh Chhabra versus Reena Seriak' under Section 9

MHA pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court camp at

Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

The claim of the wife is purely on the grounds that the

she has filed DMC No.725 of 21.07.2020 titled as 'Reena Seraik

@ Aaradhya versus Sulabh Chhabra' pending in the Family Court

1 of 2

at Jalandhar for seeking decree of divorce (Annexure P-1) while

the husband has filed another petition bearing No.HMA-34/2021

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Annexure P-2)

pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at

Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

The petition under Section 9 of the Act is for restoration

of the conjugal rights while the other petition is purely to seek

decree of divorce between the parties and, therefore, can be

independently adjudicated and disposed off and there is no fear of

contradictory judgments in the two matters which are to be decided

purely on entirely different grounds and, therefore, to the mind of

this Court, is no legal and legitimate ground for seeking transfer of

the matter pending in a Court in Jalandhar and Kapurthala.

The claim of apprehending threat to life of the wife at

the hands of the husband is unsupported, vague and ambiguous

without apparently any iota of truth and does not convince the

Court much and rather is a ploy to strengthen the plea of transfer.

It is nothing but a pure misuse of the process of the Court and,

therefore, the same stands dismissed.

                                            (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
30.03.2022                                       JUDGE
Neha
           Whether speaking/reasoned              :      Yes/No
           Whether reportable                     :      Yes/No

                                   2 of 2