Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meenu vs Yasin on 21 July, 2022
TA No.139 of 2021 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.139 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.07.2022
Meenu
....Petitioner
Versus
Yasin
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Singal, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of a civil suit filed
under Section 100 CPC read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief
Act, for dissolution of marriage, pending in the Camp Court, Ganaur,
District Sonepat to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Camp Court,
Naraingarh, District Ambala.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a
matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and also got registered an FIR under Sections 323, 406 and
498-A IPC at Sirsa.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
respondent/husband has filed the aforesaid suit under Section 100 CPC
read with Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, as a counter-blast,
before the Principal Judge, Camp Court, Ganaur, District Sonepat.
Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on account
of a petition filed by the respondent/husband, the petitioner is facing
1 of 3
TA No.139 of 2021 (O&M)
great difficulty in prosecuting the said case as there is a distance of
about 170 Kms from Camp Court, Naraingarh, District Ambala to
Camp Court, Ganaur, District Sonepat.
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
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
2 of 3
TA No.139 of 2021 (O&M)
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 civil suit filed under Section 100 CPC read with
Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, pending before the
Camp Court, Ganaur, District Sonepat will be transferred
to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Camp Court,
Naraingarh, District Ambala.
2. The District Judge, Ambala, will assign the said petition to
the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. The Camp Court, Ganaur, District Sonepat is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to
District Judge, Ambala.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
Camp Court, Naraingarh, District Ambala, within a
period of 01 month from today.
Disposed of.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
21.07.2022
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
