Ranjana Devi vs Ram Lal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1950 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                                   CMPMO No. 430 of 2020
                                       Date of Decision: 10.3.2021




                                                                                          .
    ______________________________________________________________





    Ranjana Devi                                   .....Petitioner

                         Versus
    Ram Lal                                  .....Respondent





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.

    For the Respondent: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate.
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

r to By way of instant petition filed under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for transfer

of case bearing HMA No. 164 of 2019, titled as Ram Lal versus

Ranjana Devi, pending in the Court of learned District Judge

(Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., to the Court of

learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, (Camp at

Arki), Himachal Pradesh.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 26.1.2015 according to Hindu rites

and customs prevailing in the area, but fact remains that they

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

were unable to live together for long on account of certain

differences.

.

3. As per the averments contained in the petition,

respondent has filed petition under Section 13(i) (ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act ( for shot the 'Act') in the Court of learned District

Judge (Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., seeking therein

dissolution of marriage. After having received summons/ notices

issued by the Court below in the aforesaid petition having been

filed by the respondent (husband), petitioner has approached this

Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to transfer the

proceedings from the Court of learned District Judge (Family

Court ) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., to the Court of learned

Additional District, Judge, Solan, District Solan(camp at Arki),

H.P., on the grounds of inconvenience, insufficiency of means,

compulsive litigation and on the ground that the distance between

Mandi and Solan is more than 162 Km and it is difficult for her to

attend the Court at Mandi, H.P.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties

and perused the material available on record, this Court has no

hesitation to conclude that in the matrimonial proceedings and

other like proceedings, which are the outcome of matrimonial

discord, it is the convenience of the wife, which is required to be

taken into consideration by the Court while considering the prayer,

if any, made for transfer of the case.

.

5. In Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and

another (2001) 10 SCC 41, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that in a case where the wife seeks transfer of the petition,

then as against husband's convenience, it is the wife's convenience

which must be looked at.

6. In Soma Choudhury versus Gourab Choudhaury

(2004) 13 SCC 462, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

once the wife alleges that she has no source of income, whatsoever

and was entirely dependent upon his father, who was a retired

government servant, then it was the convenience of the wife which

was required to be looked into and not that of the husband, who

had pleaded a threat to his life. It was further observed that if the

respondent therein had any threat to his life, he could take police

help by making an appropriate application to this effect.

7. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi versus Kishor Babulal

Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, in a case seeking transfer of the

case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was the prime

consideration.

8. Similarly, while dealing with the application for

.

transfer of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder

Gurcharan Singh versus Kandi Friends Education Trust and

others (2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after

analyzing the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil

Procedure laid down certain broad parameters for transfer of cases

and it was held:- r "23. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain

broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to the plaintiff or the defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the

points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section

of public interested in the litigation; "interest of justice" demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in

considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or

the defendant is not likely to have a "fair trial" in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order."

9. In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another versus

Dharmendra Kumar Gupta (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the wife had sought

transfer of proceedings on the ground that she was having a minor

child and it was difficult for her to attend the Court at Palamu,

Daltonganj, which was in the State of Jharkhand and at a quite

.

distance from Patna where she was now residing with her child.

Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the

proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

10. Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani versus Ashok

Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had sought

transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in Madhya Pradesh on

the ground of inconvenience as there was none in her family to

escort her to Indore and on this ground the proceedings were

ordered to be transferred.

11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of

law that in dispute of the present kind where the wife is compelled

to reside at her parental house on account of matrimonial dispute,

it is convenience of the wife, which is required to be considered

over and above the inconvenience of the husband.

12. At this stage, learned counsel representing the parties

state that the case pending in the Court of learned District Judge

(Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P may be ordered to be

transferred to learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla,

District Shimla, H.P.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove

.

as well as fair statements made by learned counsel representing

the parties, the present petition is allowed and the case bearing

HMA No. 164 of 2019 titled as Ram Lal versus Ranjana Devi,

pending in the Court of learned District Judge (Family Court),

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., is ordered to be transferred to the

Court of learned District Judge (Family Court) Shimla, District

Shimla, Himachal Pradesh forthwith.

14. The parties through their respective counsel(s) are

directed to appear before the learned District Judge (Family Court)

Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on 5.4.2021

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

so also pending application(s), if any.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge 10th March, 2021

(shankar)