SAPNA Vs. DEEPAK UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition under Sec. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that Deepak Uppal, respondent, was married to Sapna, petitioner No. 1, at Chandigarh on 1-2-1987. The marriage did not work. There was litigation between the parties and ultimately the husband filed a petition under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage on 11-11-1987 which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, copy of the petition is Annexure P.I. In paragraph 17 thereof, it was stated :

(2.) The present petitioner Sapna was served notice in the said application for annulment of marriage and she filed the present application for transfer of the proceedings to the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. In the petition, it is stated that marriage of the parties took place at Chandigarh, that the petitioner Mrs. Sapna who is respondent in the petition under Sec. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act resides at Chandigarh and the parties to the marriage last resided together as husband and wife at Chandigarh. She has also stated that the husband failed to make out any case, so as to invest the Court at Bathinda with territorial jurisdiction. Emphasis has been laid on the averment made in paragraph 17 extracted above, in which the husband failed even to allege that the parties last resided together as husband and wife within territorial jurisdiction of Court at Bathinda. Apart from various criminal cases pending between the parties, the husband is alleged to have written a threatening letter to father of the wife from jail at Ambala. It was to the effect that he had fixed up with some desperate criminals and that he would liquidate his father-in-law etc.

(3.) Notice of the petition was served on the husband but he failed to appear. It was considered expedient that the husband should appear and assist the Court. Accordingly under orders of S.S. Grewal, J. a fresh notice was again issued to the husband and personally served on him. In spite the service of notice, no one has appeared for the husband.