Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Kaur vs Chanan Singh on 5 September, 2022
TA-15-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
227
TA-15-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.09.2022
Mandeep Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Chanan Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
While issuing notice of motion on 08.01.2021, the following
order was passed:
"Instant transfer application has been filed under
Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of the petition filed by
the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
from the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Ferozepur to a Court of competent jurisdiction
at Amritsar.
Counsel submits that out of the wedlock a female
child was born who is now 6 years of age and is in the
custody of the mother. Petitioner has no source of
income and is totally dependent upon her parents. The
parental house is at Amritsar where she is currently
staying along with her daughter. That apart, a petition for
divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act as
also an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance have been filed and are pending in
Amritsar.
Notice of motion returnable for 26.02.2021."
1 of 4
TA-15-2021 (O&M) -2-
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 petitioner has further relied upon 2022
Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,
wherein 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
2 of 4
TA-15-2021 (O&M) -3-
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."
As per office report, the respondent is served, however, there is
no representation on his behalf.
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
case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V.
Aishwarya'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 Additional
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur will be
transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction
at Amritsar.
(ii) The District Judge, Amritsar will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3 of 4
TA-15-2021 (O&M) -4-
(iii) The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur
is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to
the aforesaid case to District Judge, Amritsar.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Amritsar within a period of 01 month
from today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are
pending between the parties, will accommodate
them with one date in a calendar month.
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
Ferozepur, 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 Ferozepur, in
case the respondent opts to contest this petition.
05.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
