04-09-2024, 01:27 PM
The transfer petition has been instituted by the first and second petitioners seeking a transfer of the complaint proceedings instituted by the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The proceedings have been instituted by the respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in the State of Punjab and are numbered as COMA 786 of 2021.
The petitioners are residents of Delhi. The respondent is in the judicial service of the State of Punjab and is presently posted as JMIC, Ludhiana, Punjab.
The ground on which the transfer was sought was that the first and second petitioners are nearly 70 years of age and the position of the respondent may interfere with the fair trial.
The genesis of the dispute is that the elder son of the petitioners passed away on 11 October 2021. The respondent claims to have been in a matrimonial relationship with the deceased. This is, however, a matter of dispute since the petitioners do not accept that position.
When the transfer petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2 February 2024, this Court was of the view that bearing in mind the age of the petitioners and the position of the respondent as a member of the judicial service, it would be eminently desirable if the parties attempt an amicable resolution of the dispute. On 19 February 2024, we had requested Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, to act as a facilitator and as an officer of this Court to explore the possibility of the parties resolving the dispute on amicable terms.
The proceedings were adjourned on 15 March 2024. On the previous date on 5 April 2024, Ms Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that there are persistent differences between the parties, upon which both sets of counsel agreed that it would be desirable if an effort is made in Chambers to explore the possibility of a settlement.
The petitioners have been represented by Mr Puneet Khurana and Mr Amit Dubey, counsel. Mr Dama Seshadri Naidu, senior counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent, with Mr Vardhman Kaushik, AOR.
When the proceedings are called out in Chambers, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, who is also present in Chambers, states that between the last date of hearing and the present hearing, there has been a considerable amount of progress and draft terms of settlement have been agreed upon between the parties. Liberty to implead Mr Hony Nagpal is granted to facilitate a comprehensive family arrangement.
Before the Court can entertain the request of passing a final decree, the terms of settlement duly signed by the parties should be placed on the record on affidavit. The terms of settlement shall also indicate the sources through which the payments shall be be made to the respondent and the additional respondent.
The petitioners are residents of Delhi. The respondent is in the judicial service of the State of Punjab and is presently posted as JMIC, Ludhiana, Punjab.
The ground on which the transfer was sought was that the first and second petitioners are nearly 70 years of age and the position of the respondent may interfere with the fair trial.
The genesis of the dispute is that the elder son of the petitioners passed away on 11 October 2021. The respondent claims to have been in a matrimonial relationship with the deceased. This is, however, a matter of dispute since the petitioners do not accept that position.
When the transfer petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2 February 2024, this Court was of the view that bearing in mind the age of the petitioners and the position of the respondent as a member of the judicial service, it would be eminently desirable if the parties attempt an amicable resolution of the dispute. On 19 February 2024, we had requested Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, to act as a facilitator and as an officer of this Court to explore the possibility of the parties resolving the dispute on amicable terms.
The proceedings were adjourned on 15 March 2024. On the previous date on 5 April 2024, Ms Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that there are persistent differences between the parties, upon which both sets of counsel agreed that it would be desirable if an effort is made in Chambers to explore the possibility of a settlement.
The petitioners have been represented by Mr Puneet Khurana and Mr Amit Dubey, counsel. Mr Dama Seshadri Naidu, senior counsel, has appeared on behalf of the respondent, with Mr Vardhman Kaushik, AOR.
When the proceedings are called out in Chambers, Ms Aishwarya Bhati, who is also present in Chambers, states that between the last date of hearing and the present hearing, there has been a considerable amount of progress and draft terms of settlement have been agreed upon between the parties. Liberty to implead Mr Hony Nagpal is granted to facilitate a comprehensive family arrangement.
Before the Court can entertain the request of passing a final decree, the terms of settlement duly signed by the parties should be placed on the record on affidavit. The terms of settlement shall also indicate the sources through which the payments shall be be made to the respondent and the additional respondent.