Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarpreet Kaur Puri vs Rahul Bhatia on 7 September, 2022
TA-1281-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA-1281-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.09.2022
Amarpreet Kaur Puri
....Petitioner
Vs.
Rahul Bhatia
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Chandandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending
before the Family Court, Ambala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at
Ludhiana.
As per report submitted by the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court, no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the
parties.
While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by
this Court on 23.12.2021: -
1 of 5
"Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner-wife would have to travel a distance of about 120
kilometres (one way) from her place of residence in Ludhiana
in order to attend to the proceedings initiated by the
respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (HM Act) for restitution of conjugal rights pending
in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala bearing
case No.HMA/1106/2021 and, hence, she would not be able to
properly defend her case on each and every date of hearing. It
is further contended that one petition initiated by the petitioner
under Section 13 of the HM Act bearing No.HMA/2901/2021 is
already pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ludhiana."
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 has further relied upon N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs.
2 of 5
A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -
"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.
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."
Reply on behalf of the respondent is on record, in which only
objection taken is that the respondent is financially poor person, therefore,
the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by him may not be
transferred from Ambala to Ludhiana.
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
3 of 5
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 parties, considering the fact
that the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and
transportation expenses and in view of the judgments in 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
deem it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following
conditions:-
1. The petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
pending before the Family Court, Ambala will be transferred to
the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ludhiana.
2. The District Judge, Ludhiana will assign the said petition to
the same Court, where the petition under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act filed by the petitioner is pending, so as to decide
both the petitions together.
3. The Family Court, Ambala is directed to transfer all the record
pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Ludhiana.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court,
Ludhiana within a period of 01 month from today.
5. The Family Court, Ludhiana will make all the endeavour to
refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for
4 of 5
exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the
parties.
6. The Court concerned, where the litigations between the parties
are pending, will accommodate them with one date in one
calender month.
Present petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
JUDGE
07.09.2022
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
