Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rumanjeet Kaur vs Gurwinder Singh on 31 August, 2022
TA-1000-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA-1000-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.08.2022
Rumanjeet Kaur
....Petitioner
Vs.
Gurwinder Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the
respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending
in the Court of Family Court, Moonak, District Sangrur to the competent
Court of jurisdiction at Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account
of matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act at Talwandi Sabo. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
facing great difficulty in prosecuting the petition filed by the respondent, as
there is a distance of about 100 kms between Talwandi Sabo and Moonak.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh
1 of 5
Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor
Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are
required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of
the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to
another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their
convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants
under undue hardships."
Learned counsel has further relied upon N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs.
A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24
of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should
demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In
matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to
consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into
consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the
social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their
standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto
and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their
livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are
seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing
socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is
the wife's convenience which must be looked at while
considering transfer.
Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in
different Courts between the same parties which raise common
2 of 5
question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases
are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried
together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial
of the same issues and conflict of decisions."
It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a
matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider
family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition
of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and
most important, convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without
assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and
fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges
and travelling expenses.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact
that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying
further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will
have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view
of the fact that even in case notice of motion is issued, even the
respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in view of the
judgments in Sumita Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case
(supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra) passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this Court deem it appropriate to allow the present petition,
subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
pending before the Family Court, Moonak, District Sangrur
3 of 5
will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at
Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
2. The District Judge, Bathinda will assign the said petition to the
competent Court of jurisdiction at Talwandi Sabo.
3. The Family Court, Moonak, District Sangrur is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case(s) to
District Judge, Bathinda.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court,
Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda within a period of 01 month
from today.
5. The Family Court, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda will make
all the endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement between the parties.
6. The Court concerned, where the litigations between the parties
are pending, will accommodate them with one date in one
calender month.
However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this
petition, if he intent to contest the same, provided that:-
(a) The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance amount,
if any, in terms of a petition filed by the petitioner either under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act
or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
4 of 5
(b) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay
Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court
proceedings at Moonak, District Sangrur, on each and every
date of hearing.
(c) The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/-
towards the litigation expenses of the petitioner to pursue the
case at Moonak, District Sangrur, in case the respondent opt to
contest this petition.
Present petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
JUDGE
31.08.2022
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
