Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Deep Kaur vs Maninder Singh @Mehnga Singh on 2 August, 2022
TA No.967 of 2019 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.967 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.08.2022
Pawan Deep Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Maninder Singh @ Mehnga Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)
CM-22408-CII-2019
Heard.
Allowed as prayed for.
TA-967-2019 (O&M)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family
Court, Kaithal to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fatehgarh
Sahib.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a
matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and a petition/complaint under the Domestic Violence Act
at Fatehgarh Sahib.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family
1 of 4
TA No.967 of 2019 (O&M)
Court, Kaithal.
Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on account
of a petition filed by the respondent/husband, the petitioner is facing
great difficulty in prosecuting the said case as there is a distance of
about 130 Kms from Fatehgarh Sahib to Kaithal.
Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the
petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody
and she is facing difficulty to defend the case as she has to travel from
Fatehgarh Sahib to Kaithal.
Counsel for the petitioner 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 has 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."
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment "N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha," 2022
Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
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
2 of 4
TA No.967 of 2019 (O&M)
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 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."
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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor
child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning
capacity of the husband and most important the 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.
Counsel for the respondent has, however, not disputed the
factual position but opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, considering the
fact that the petitioner/wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and
transportation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita
Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and
3 of 4
TA No.967 of 2019 (O&M)
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, Kaithal will be
transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at
Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. The District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. The Family Court, Kaithal is directed to transfer all the
record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
Fatehgarh Sahib, within a period of 01 month from today.
Disposed of.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
02.08.2022
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
