Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navneet Kaur And Ors vs Simranjeet Singh And Anr on 5 August, 2022
TA-836-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA-836-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.08.2022
Navneet Kaur and others
....Petitioners
Vs.
Simranjeet Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate
for the petitioners.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of Civil Suit No.984 of
2022 filed by respondent No.1, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.
Divn.), Patiala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that on account
of matrimonial discord, petitioner No.1 has filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and a petition/complaint under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act at Jalandhar. It is further submitted that the
petitioners are facing great difficulty in prosecuting the petition filed by
respondent No.1, as there is a distance of about 155 kms between Jalandhar
and Patiala.
Learned counsel has further contended that petitioner No.1 is
1 of 5
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 Jalandhar to Patiala.
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 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
2 of 5
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
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 petitioners, considering the
fact that issuance of notice to the respondents has the consequences of
staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioners
will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in
3 of 5
view of the fact that even in case notice of motion is issued, even the
respondents have 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 Civil Suit No.984 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1,
pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala will be
transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jalandhar.
2. The District Judge, Jalandhar, will assign the said petition to
the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. The Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Patiala is directed to transfer all
the record pertaining to the aforesaid case(s) to District Judge,
Jalandhar.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge,
Jalandhar within a period of 01 month from today.
However, liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to revive this
petition, if he intent to contest the same, provided that:-
(a) He will clear all arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in
terms of a petition filed by petitioner No.1 either under Section
125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(b) He will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/-
4 of 5
per day, to petitioner No.1 for attending the Court proceedings
at Patiala, on each and every date of hearing.
(c) He will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the
litigation expenses of petitioner No.1 to pursue the case at
Patiala, in case, opt to contest this petition.
Present petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
JUDGE
05.08.2022
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
