Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Payel Mehta petitioner -wife filed a petition against Sanjay Sarin her husband -respondent, for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") at Chandigarh. Her husband has also filed a petition under section 9 of the Act against her in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(2.) IN the wake of transfer petitions filed by the petitioner -wife, the Hon'ble Apex Court transferred the HMA case pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the District Court, Chandigarh for trial alongwith the divorce petition, by virtue of order dated 15.11.2010, the operative part of which is (para 3) as under: Accordingly, these transfer petitions are allowed and case H.M.A. No. 169/2007 (now numbered 25/2010) and Contempt Petition No. M -09/2010 titled as "Sanjay Sarin vs. Payal Sarin" pending before Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi are ordered to be transferred to the District Court, Chandigarh. The District Court at Chandigarh to take up and dispose of the transferred cases alongwith the divorce petition (H.M.A. Petition No.339 of 2007) filed by the petitioner -wife pending on his file. It is stated that the divorce petition is at the stage of arguments. In view of it, we request the court at Chandigarh to expedite the hearing and trial of the case that is being transferred so that both cases can be disposed of by a common order. This will not come in the way of the matter being proceeded with in mediation. Although about nine months have already elapsed, but the matrimonial cases between the parties are still not decided, which necessitated the petitioner -wife to file the present revision petition, for direction to the trial Court to decide the indicated cases in a time frame manner.
(3.) AFTER hearing the petitioner in person, going through the record, comments of the trial Court and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be partly accepted.;