Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderpreet Kaur vs Hardial Singh on 1 December, 2022
T.A.No. 1166 of 2021 (O&M) 1 204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No. 1166 of 2021 (O & M)
Date of decision: 01.12.2022
Inderpreet Kaur
..........Petitioner
vs
Hardial Singh
...........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for
transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section
13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 titled "Hardial Singh vs.
Inderpreet Kaur" pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Amritsar to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Camp Court at
Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
Though notice has been served upon the respondent but
no one has appeared on his behalf on the last date of hearing. Today
also, nobody is present to represent him. Accordingly, this petition is
being decided in his absence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended :-
i) that the parties were married on 21.4.2010 according to
Sikh rites and rituals.
1 of 5
ii) that two children, one girl of 11 years and other, boy of 9
years, were born out of this wedlock and are in the care
and custody of the respondent-husband.
iii) that the petitioner-wife is living separately from the
respondent-husband since 15.4.2019 and living with her
parents at their mercy at Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.
iv) that the petitioner is unemployed, having no source of
income and totally dependent upon her parents and the
respondent-husband is not paying anything to her towards
maintenance.
v) The respondent-husband has filed the petition under
Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Amritsar.
The proceedings arising out of petitions (1) under Section
125 Cr.P.C.; (2) under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and (3)
petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act,
1890, filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the
Courts having competent jurisdiction at Camp Court at
Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur..
v) that the distance between place of residence of the
petitioner-wife i.e. Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and the
place of proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband,
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Amritsar, is about 98 kilometers of one side.
vi) that there is no able bodied person in the family of the
petitioner, who can accompany her to the Court of
proceedings at Amritsar.
vii) That vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed by this Court, the
matter was referred to the Mediation & Conciliation
Centre of this Court and the parties were directed to
appear there for exploring the possibility of some
2 of 5
amicable settlement. But as per report of the Mediation &
Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 14.1.2022,
because of absence of the parties, the mediation could not
held.
3. It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for
transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is
well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik
Sha," 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the 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
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."
5. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in
"Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay", 2002 SC 396 and "Rajani
Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi", 2005(12) SCC 237,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "while deciding
3 of 5
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."
6. Even this Court in number of cases has followed the
aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, 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.
7. In view of the facts mentioned above and the judgments
i.e. 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 deems it appropriate to allow the present
petition, subject to the following conditions:-
a) The petition filed by respondent husband under
Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955, bearing
HMA/1141/2020 titled as 'Hardial Singh vs.
Inderpreet Kaur', pending in the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Amritsar is transferred to a
Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur.
4 of 5
b) The ld. District Judge, Amritsar is directed to
transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Hoshiarpur.
c) The parties are directed to appear before the District
& Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 20.1.2023.
d) The District Judge, Hoshiarpur will assign the said
petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. The concerned Court at Hoshiarpur will make all
endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement
between the parties.
9. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending
between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one
calendar month.
11. I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin
Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet
Singh; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.
Disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
December 01, 2022 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned YES/NO
Whether Reportable YES/NO
5 of 5
