Hemlata vs Sandeep Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7967 P&H

TA-263-2022 (O&M)                                                         -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                        TA-263-2022 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 28.07.2022

Hemlata                                                             ...Petitioner

                                         Versus

Sandeep Kumar                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-    Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             None for the respondent.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

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

respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

titled as Sandeep Kumar vs. Hemlata, pending before the Family Court,

Narnaul Camp at Kanina to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jhajjar.

Learned 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. as well as a complaint under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Jhajjar, which are pending, and as a

counter-blast to the same, the respondent-husband has filed the present

petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Kanina in order to

harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing great

difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 55 kms

between the aforesaid two places.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody,

1 of 4

TA-263-2022 (O&M) -2-

therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Kanina.

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

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."

As per office report, notice issued to respondent is not received

back either served or otherwise, however, since the proceedings before the

trial Court were stayed, vide order dated 17.03.2022, it is deemed to be

notice on the respondent.

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, considering the fact

that if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have

to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view

of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's

2 of 4

TA-263-2022 (O&M) -3-

case (supra) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra), this Court deems it

appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-

(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Narnaul, Camp at Kanina will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jhajjar.

(ii) The District Judge, Jhajjar will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

(iii) The Family Court at Kanina is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Jhajjar.

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Jhajjar within a period of 01 month from today.

However, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to revive

this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-

(i) The respondent will clear all the arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in terms of the petition filed by the petitioner either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(ii) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at Kanina, on each and every date of hearing.

(iii) The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the petitioner to pursue the case at Kanina, in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.

28.07.2022                                      (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                           JUDGE



                                    3 of 4

 TA-263-2022 (O&M)                                                 -4-

           Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No
           Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                              4 of 4