Punjab-Haryana High Court
Noor Amrit Kaur Mangat vs Maninder Kaur And Ors on 20 December, 2022
T.A.No. 704 of 2022 (O&M) 1 209-II
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No. 704 of 2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 20.12.2022
Noor Amrit Kaur Mangat
..........Petitioner
vs
Maninder Kaur and others
...........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.P.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the respondents.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner is for transfer of
the Civil Suit filed by respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs (mother-in-
law and father-in-law of the petitioner) for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants [defendant No.1-Alam Singh (son of
plaintiffs and husband of petitioner/defendant No.2-Noor Amrit Kaur
Mangat) defendant No.2-Noor Amrit Kaur Mangat (daughter-in-law
of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs)], their agents, attorney
associates etc. from interfering in the peaceful possession of House
No.334, Sector 2, Panchkula, which is self-acquired property of the
plaintiffs, titled as "Maninder Kaur and another vs. Alam Singh and
another", pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.),
Panchkula to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended :-
1 of 5
T.A.No. 704 of 2022 (O&M) 2 209-II
i) That the petitioner and respondent No.3 were married on
01.11.2020 according to Sikh rites and rituals.
ii) That no child was born out of this wedlock.
iii) That the petitioner is living separately from the
respondent No.3 and his family since 20.5.2021 and living
with her widow mother at her mercy at Faridkot.
iv) That the petitioner is working as a teacher in a private
school and the respondent No.3-husband is not paying
anything to her towards maintenance.
v) The respondents No.1 and 2, who are petitioner's mother-
in-law and father-in-law respectively, have filed a Civil
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the present
petitioner and respondent No.3-Alam Singh (who is
defendant No.1 in the said Civil Suit before the trial
Court), from interfering in the peaceful possession of
House No.334, Sector 2, Panchkula, which is stated to be
their self-acquired property.
vi) The proceedings arising out of petition under Section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005; filed by the petitioner against the respondents (who
are mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the
petitioner), are pending in the Courts having competent
jurisdiction at Faridkot.
v) That the distance between place of residence of the
petitioner-wife i.e. Faridkot and the place of proceedings
in the aforesaid Civil Suit filed by respondents No.1 and
2, pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panchkula,
is about 240 kilometers of one side.
vi) That there is no proficient male member in the family of
the petitioner, who can accompany her to the Court of
proceedings at Panchkula.
3. It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for
transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.
2 of 5
T.A.No. 704 of 2022 (O&M) 3 209-II
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Since the connected petition i.e. Transfer Application
No.27 of 2022 has been allowed, learned counsel for the respondent is
not in a position to controvert the plea of the petitioner in the present
petition except that respondents No.1 and 2 are old aged persons.
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
the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage
3 of 5
T.A.No. 704 of 2022 (O&M) 4 209-II
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 aforesaid Civil Suit filed by respondents No.1
and 2, titled as 'Maninder Kaur and another vs.
Alam Singh and another', detailed in para 1 of this
judgment, pending before the Civil Judge (Jr.
Divn.), Panchkula is transferred to a Court of
competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.
4 of 5
T.A.No. 704 of 2022 (O&M) 5 209-II
b) The ld. District Judge, Panchkula is directed to
transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Faridkot.
c) The parties are directed to appear before the District
& Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 23.1.2023.
d) The District Judge, Faridkot will assign the said
petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. The concerned Court at Faridkot 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 20, 2022 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned YES/NO
Whether Reportable YES/NO
5 of 5
