Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiranpreet Kaur vs Amandeep Panjete on 10 November, 2022
TA No. 120 of 2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
209 TA No. 120 of 2021
Date of decision: 10.11.2022
Kiranpreet Kaur ...Petitioner
v
Amandeep Panjete ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Ajay Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kushagra Beniwal, Advocate for the respondent.
Nidhi Gupta, J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner wife is for transfer of
the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, bearing No.HMA/645/2020 titled "Amandeep
Panjete vs. Kiranpreet Kaur" pending in the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Kurukshetra to a court of competent jurisdiction at
Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that:
i)that the marriage between the parties was solemnised
on 01.11.2009 according to Sikh rites and rituals and one
male child was born out of this wedlock on 01.10.2010.
ii) that the distance between her place of residence and
Court at Kurukshetra is 150 kms. (to and fro).
iii) that petitioner has also filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.PC which is already pending at District Courts at
Sangrur.
iv) that the parents of the petitioner are aged and unable
to accompany her to Kurukshetra on each and every date.
1 of 4
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that on the last date of hearing, parties had been referred to Mediation.
However, Mediation has failed. No reply has been filed on behalf of the
respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well
established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha," 2022
Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the
transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,
wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the
Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the
parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their
standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the
circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under
whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given
the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it
is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering
transfer.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts
between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law,
and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that
they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity
in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."
6. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in "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
2 of 4
allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts
should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."
7. Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid
principle of law. Accordingly, 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.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view
of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra) passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the
present petition, subject to the following conditions:-
a)The petition filed by respondent husband under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing
No.HMA/645/2020 titled "Amandeep Panjete vs.
Kiranpreet Kaur" pending in the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Kurukshetra is transferred to a
Court of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur.
b) The ld. District Judge, Kurukshetra is directed to
transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case
to District Judge, Sangrur.
3 of 4
c) The parties, through their counsel, are directed to
appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur on
09.12.2022.
d)The District Judge, Sangrur will assign the said
petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. The concerned Court at Sangrur will make all endeavour to
refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring
the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties.
10. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending between
the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.
Disposed of.
10.11.2022 (Nidhi Gupta)
ashok Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
