Shalini Nagpal @ Shalini Arora vs Rajat Arora
2022 Latest Caselaw 8097 P&H

TA-142-2022 (O&M)                                                      -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
215
                                                       TA-142-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 29.07.2022

Shalini Nagpal @ Shalini Arora                                    ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

Rajat Arora                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate
            for the respondent.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

While issuing notice of motion on 21.03.2022, the following

order was passed:

"The applicant is seeking transfer of a petition bearing No.HMA-4/2022 titled as 'Rajat Arora Vs. Shalini Arora' filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh (Annexure P-1), to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda.

Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the applicant along with her one year old child is presently residing at her parental home at Bathinda where she is living at the mercy of her parents. Hence, it would be very difficult for her to commute on each and every date of hearing from Bathinda to Chandigarh as the distance between two places is approximately 245 kms.

On a pointed query put to the learned counsel as to whether there were some other cases also pending

1 of 3

TA-142-2022 (O&M) -2-

between the parties, he replied in the negative.

Notice of motion for 25.07.2022."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of

a matrimonial discord, the petitioner-wife is residing at Bathinda and the

respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act at Chandigarh 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 240 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,

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

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."

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has opposed the

prayer of the petitioner-wife.

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

2 of 3

TA-142-2022 (O&M) -3-

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

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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Bathinda.

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

(iii) The Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandigarh is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Bathinda.

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

29.07.2022                                     (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No

                Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                     3 of 3