Garima @ Gauri v. Rishi Kumar

Delhi High Court · 06 Sep 2017 · 2017:DHC:8560
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
TR.P.(C.) No.68/2017; TR.P.No.(C.) 69/2017; TR.P.No.(C.) 70/2017
2017:DHC:8560
family appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed transfer petitions to shift family court cases to a court closer to the petitioner-wife, prioritizing her convenience over the respondent-husband without considering the merits of the dispute.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(C.)No.68/2017 GARIMA @ GAURI Petitioner
Tlirough: Mr. Raghav Narayan, Adv.
VERSUS
Rism KUMAR Respondent
Through: Counsel for the respondent (appearance not given).
AND
TR.P.(C.)No.69/2017 GARIMA @ GAURI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghav Narayan, Adv.
VERSUS
RISHI KUMAR Respondent AND TR.P.(C.)No.70/2017
GARIMA @GAURI Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghav Narayan, Adv.
VERSUS
RISHI KUMAR Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
06.09.2017 TR.P.(C.) No.68/2017. TR.P.No.(C.) 69/2017 & TR.P.No.(C.) 70/2017.
ORDER

1. Transfer is sought of M. No.56006/2016, Civil Suit No.55951/2016 and HMA No.562916/2016, all pending in the Court of Shri M.C. Gupta, Principal Judge, Family Courts (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi to Family Court(South-East), SaketCourts Complex, New Delhi, on the ground of the TR.P.(a) No.68/2017, TR.P.No.(C) 69/2017& TR.P.No.(C) 70/2017 page 1 of[3] 2017:DHC:8560 petitioner/wife residing closer ofthe Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi than to the Rohini Courts, Delhi.

2. Notice of the petitions was ordered to be issued and the counsel for the respondent / husband appears and seeks time to file reply.

3. Considering the nature of controversy, adjournment is refused.

4. The counsels have been heard.

5. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent/husband (i) that these petitions have been filed to harass the respondent/husband; and,, (ii) that the petitioner/wife, after receiving substantial amount of money though had agreed to divorce by mutual consent and had also participated in the First Motion therefor but is now, with a mala fide intent refusing. It is yet further contended that the respondent / husband is residing closer to the Rohini Courts, Delhi.

6. The arguments urged on merits are of no relevance in these Transfer Petitions. It is deemed appropriate that the convenience to the petitioner/wife, than ofthe respondent/husband, be given preference.

7. The petitions are accordingly allowed.

8. M. No.56006/2016, Civil Suit No.55951/2016 and HMA No.562916/2016 all pending in the Court of Shri M.C. Gupta, Principal Judge, Family Courts (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi are ordered to be transferred to the Family Courts (South-East), Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi.

9. The Presiding Judge, Family Court (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi is requested to physically transfer the files forthwith. TR.P.(C.) No.68/2017, TR.P.No.(C) 69/2017& TR.P.No.(C) 70/2017 page2of[3] r

10. The parties to appear before the Family Court (South-East), Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi on October, 2017. The petitions are disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2017 'pp'. TR.P.(C.)No.68/2017, TR.P.No.(C) 69/2017 & TR.P.No.(C) page 3 of[3]