Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh And Another vs Mohit Bhalla on 6 September, 2022
TA-226-2020 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
208
TA-226-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.09.2022
Amritpal Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Mohit Bhalla ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. G. S. Sirphikhi, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the
responden under Sections 25, 12, 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 for the custody of the minor children, pending before the Family
Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jagadhri,
Yamuna Nagar.
Petitioner No. 2 is stated to have died.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of
the daughter of the petitioners' was solemnized with the respondent on
13.02.2013 and out of the said wedlock, two children have born, who are
now aged about 7 and 8 years. It is further submitted that unfortunately the
daughter of the petitioners allegedly committed suicide on 22.11.2018 and
since then, the minor children are residing with the petitioners.
Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No. 2 has since
died and petitioner No. 1 is a senior citizen and he is not able to pursue the
1 of 4
TA-226-2020 (O&M) -2-
aforesaid case at Gurdaspur. It is further submitted that as per Section 9 of
the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the jurisdiction will be at a place,
where the minor child is residing and in the present case, both the minor
children are residing at Yamuna Nagar.
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
2 of 4
TA-226-2020 (O&M) -3-
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."
Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the fact
that as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the jurisdiction
will be at a place, where the minor child is residing.
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:-
3 of 4
TA-226-2020 (O&M) -4-
(i) The aforesaid petition filed under Sections 25, 12,
7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur will
be transferred to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.
(ii) The District Judge, Yamuna Nagar will assign
the said petition to the competent Court of
jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Gurdaspur is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Yamuna Nagar.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar 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.
06.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
