Jyoti vs Anil
2022 Latest Caselaw 7309 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7309 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 July, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jyoti vs Anil on 20 July, 2022

TA-937-2021                                                       -1-



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                               TA-937-2021 (O&M)
                                               Date of decision: 20.07.2022

Jyoti
                                                                  ....Petitioner



                                         Vs.

Anil
                                                                ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:    Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Sonia Kaushik, Advocate
            for the respondent.

                   *******

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

CM-8340-CII-2022

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

Annexures P-3 to P-5 are taken on record.

CM stands disposed of.

TA-937-2021

Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890

read with Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, pending

before the Family Court, Jind to the competent Court of jurisdiction at

1 of 4

Panipat.

It is admitted case that out of the matrimonial discord, some

litigations are pending between the parties and a male child namely Ayaan

Sharma was born on 01.01.2013, which is now residing in care and custody

of the petitioner at Panipat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

was turned out of her matrimonial home by giving beating and on that

account, an FIR No.817 dated 08.12.2021 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323,

341 IPC was got registered at Police Station Panipat City against the

respondent-husband and his family. It is further submitted that in terms of

Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, where the child resides,

jurisdiction lies there. It is also submitted that on account of aforesaid

petition filed by the respondent-husband, the petitioner is facing great

difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 70 kms

from Panipat to Jind.

Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is

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 Panipat to Jind.

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

2 of 4

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 for the respondent has filed the reply on

behalf of the respondent and has raised an objection that two cross-FIRs i.e.

FIRs No.426 and 414 were registered in Police Station City Jind with regard

to scuffle, which took place between the parties and therefore, the present

petition seeking transfer of the case be dismissed.

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 petitioner and after going

through facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the

petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation

expenses and also in view of the fact that the minor child is living in care

and custody of the petitioner at Panipat and in view of the judgments in

Sumita Singh's case (supra) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra)

3 of 4

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 25 of the of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, pending before the Family Court, Jind will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Panipat.