Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpa Rani vs Rakesh Kumar on 31 August, 2022
TA-399-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
224
TA-399-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.08.2022
Pushpa Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
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, 1955,
titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. Pushpa Rani, pending before the Family Court,
Kurukshetra, Camp Court at Pehowa to the competent Court of jurisdiction
at Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of
a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Dera
Bassi, which is pending. It is further submitted that as a counter-blast to the
aforesaid case, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Pehowa. It is further submitted that
the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there
is a distance of about 70 Kms between the aforesaid two places.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody,
1 of 4
TA-399-2022 (O&M) -2-
therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Pehowa.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh
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 for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022
Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"9. 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.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending
in different Courts between the same parties which raise
2 of 4
TA-399-2022 (O&M) -3-
common 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."
There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
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 if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have
to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view
of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's
case (supra) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra), this Court deems it
appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-
(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court,
Kurukshetra, Camp Court at Pehowa will be
transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction
at Dera Bassi, SAS Nagar.
(ii) The District Judge, SAS Nagar will assign the
said petition to the competent Court of
jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Pehowa is directed to
3 of 4
TA-399-2022 (O&M) -4-
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, SAS Nagar.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Dera Bassi within a period of 01 month
from today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are
pending between the parties, will accommodate
them with one date in a calendar month.
However, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to revive
this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-
(i) The respondent will clear all the arrears of
maintenance amount, if any, in terms of the
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.
(ii) The respondent will file an affidavit giving
undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the
petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at
Pehowa, on each and every date of hearing.
(iii) The respondent will bring a demand draft of
Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the
petitioner to pursue the case at Pehowa, in case
the respondent opts to contest this petition.
31.08.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
