Shruti vs Vikram
2022 Latest Caselaw 7191 P&H

TA No.1249 of 2021 (O&M)
                                                                         1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                            TA No.1249 of 2021 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 19.07.2022

Shruti
                                                             ....Petitioner
                                  Versus
Vikram
                                                           ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present: Mr. H.S. Kasan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. V.S. Punia, Advocate for the respondent.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed

under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family

Court, Jind to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

Vide order dated 15.12.2021, the following order was

passed:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner-wife would have to travel a distance of about 70 kilometres (one way) from her place of residence in District Kaithal in order to attend to the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jind bearing case No.HMA-208/2021 and, hence, she would not be able to properly defend her case on each and every date of hearing. It is further contended that the petitioner has no independent source of income and she also has a minor child of 11 months to look after.

The learned counsel would further contend that two other cases initiated by the petitioner - one under Section 12 read with Sections 17 to 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the other under

1 of 4

TA No.1249 of 2021 (O&M)

Section 125 CrPC bearing Case No.MNT126/60 - are already pending at Kaithal.

Notice of motion returnable 03.02.2022."

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a

matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition/complaint under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a petition/complaint under the Domestic

Violence Act at Kaithal.

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

Court, Jind.

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 75 Kms from Kaithal to Jind.

Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the

petitioner is having an infant child, who is living in her care and

custody and she is facing difficulty to defend the case as she has to

travel from Kaithal to Jind.

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

2 of 4

TA No.1249 of 2021 (O&M)

the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue

hardships."

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) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi'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, Jind will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

2. The District Judge, Kaithal, will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. The Family Court, Jind is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Kaithal.

3 of 4

TA No.1249 of 2021 (O&M)

4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, Kaithal, within a period of 01 month from today.

Disposed of.

                                         (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
                                                  JUDGE

19.07.2022
yakub        Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No

             Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                4 of 4