Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shruti Goyal vs Varun Aggarwal on 19 December, 2022
T.A.No. 23 of 2022 (O&M) 1 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No. 23 of 2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 19.12.2022
Shruti Goyal
..........Petitioner
Vs
Varun Aggarwal
...........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate
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
of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short 'the Act') titled "Varun
Aggarwal Vs. Shruti Goyal" pending in the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Batala, District Gurdaspur to a Court of competent
jurisdiction at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended :-
i) That the parties were married on 12.4.2011 according to
Hindu rites and rituals.
1 of 6
ii) That two male children were born out of this wedlock,
who are 10 years and 07 years of age and are in the care
and custody of the respondent-husband.
iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the
respondent-husband since 26.2.2019 and living with her
parents at their mercy at Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
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) That the respondent-husband has filed the petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Batala, District
Gurdaspur.
vi) That the distance between place of residence of the
petitioner-wife i.e. Jagraon, District Ludhiana and the
place of proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband,
pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Batala,
District Gurdaspur, is about 170 kilometers on one side.
vii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of
the petitioner, who can accompany her to the Court of
proceedings at Batala, District Gurdaspur.
3. It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for
transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.
4. Upon notice, the respondent has put in appearance and
vide order dated 08.08.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, the matter was referred to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre
at Camp Court Batala, District Gurdaspur. As per report received from
the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Batala/Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate. Batala, the mediation has failed.
2 of 6
By controverting the contents of the petition, the
respondent has filed his reply taking the following pleas :-
a) That the petitioner has not come to the Court with
clean hands and suppressed the true and material
facts from this Court as both the children are with
their own consent and willingness residing with
him and presently studying in Wood Blossom
School Batala. The fee receipts with regard to that
are annexed as Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the petitioner-wife at
her own left the company of the respondent-
husband and the children because since the date of
separation i.e. 26.2.2019, she has not filed any case
for taking the custody of the children.
b) That the brother and father of the petitioner are
practicising Lawyers at District Bar, Ludhiana
having criminal antecedents and therefore, the
respondent has apprehension that in case the case
is transferred to Ludhiana, the brother and father of
the petitioner will surely make every possible
attempt to harm the respondent and affect the case
also. Learned counsel further submits that earlier
also many times the brother and father of the
petitioner extended threats to the respondent and
the respondent has moved complaint dated
26.2.2019 (Annexure R/3) in this regard to the
SHO, Police Station Batala.
c) That not only this, the brother of the petitioner,
namely, Gaurav Goel is also involved in an FIR
with the allegations of kidnapping i.e. FIR No.205
dated 07.10.2021, under Sections 365 and 149 IPC,
registered at Police Station City, Jagraon, District
Ludhiana Rural (Annexure R/9). By referring the
said FIR, learned counsel for the respondent
3 of 6
contends that there is every likelihood that in case
the respondent attends the proceedings at the Court
at District Ludhiana, there would be danger to his
life.
d) That as both the minor sons are living with the
respondent and he is handling the responsibilities
qua their education and well-being very well and on
the other side the petitioner is having no liability of
any kind and if the case is transferred to Ludhiana,
it will adversely affect the study and future of the
children also.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his
contentions has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. Kandi
Friends Education Trust and others 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 821 and the
judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in TA-1114-
2022 case titled as 'Reeta Rani vs. Sandeep Kumar', decided on
20.09.2022 as well as in TA-328-2022, case titled as 'Rinky Rani vs.
Daljit Kumar', decided on 01.04.2022.
6. In rebuttal to the arguments of learned counsel for the
respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the
question of brother of the petitioner is concerned, he is not residing
with the petitioner and is residing at a different address as mentioned in
the FIR (Annexure R/9) i.e. House No.3628, near Civil Hospital, City
Jagraon, Ludhiana and the address of the father of petitioner is also
different.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as it
4 of 6
is undisputed that there are two minor sons born out of this wedlock,
who are living in the care and custody of the respondent-husband and
he is maintaining both the minor children well. Further, the petitioner
has also not filed any case about the custody of the minor children. In
case the present case is transferred to the Court at Ludhiana, the
respondent-husband will have to travel a distance of 170 kilometers
one way to attend the proceedings, which will be a greater
inconvenience upon the respondent considering he has the
responsibility of the minor children and thus the overall care and
studies of the children will adversely be affected. On the other hand,
the petitioner is having no liability of any kind.
9. This Court is well aware of the preponderance of law in
cases of transfer emanating from matrimonial disputes is in favour of
the wife. However, in certain similar cases as the present one, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court have refused relief to the
wife. One such case which may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SCC 197
'Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das' wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court under
similar circumstances dismissed the wife's application seeking transfer
of petition filed by the husband.Reference in this regard may also be
made to two cases of this Court where, in similar circumstances this
Court had dismissed transfer applications filed on behalf of the wife.
These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 Smt. Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh.
Gurpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of 2019 Nisha alias Manisha vs.
Amarveer Yadav.
10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
5 of 6
present case as noted above, as also the precedents of Case law as
above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any stand disposed of.
December 19, 2022 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned YES/NO
Whether Reportable YES/NO
6 of 6
