Poonam vs Prince
2022 Latest Caselaw 10754 P&H

TA-25-2022 (O&M)                                                        -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

239
                                                         TA-25-2022 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 08.09.2022

Poonam                                                            ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

Prince                                                          ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. Gaurav Jangra, Advocate &
            Ms. Sukhvir Gill, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Akshay Panghal, Advocate
            for the respondent.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

While issuing notice of motion on 25.02.2022, the following

order was passed:

"This petition has been filed by the wife seeking the transfer of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as 'Prince vs. Poonam' pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal.

The petitioner claims that she got married to the respondent on 29.09.2009. She claims that, at present, she alongwith her minor child, is residing with her aged parents at Kaithal and the distance between Kaithal and Jhajjar is more than 165 Kms. The petitioner further claims that she cannot properly defend the petition at Jhajjar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent (husband) is already defending two cases at District Court, Kaithal i.e a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and an application under Section 12 of the

1 of 4

TA-25-2022 (O&M) -2-

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Notice of motion for 25.03.2022. "

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.

                               2 of 4

 TA-25-2022 (O&M)                                                        -3-

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-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

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 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Jhajjar will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

                                 3 of 4

 TA-25-2022 (O&M)                                                            -4-

                        (ii)    The District Judge, Kaithal will assign the said

petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

(iii) The Family Court at Jhajjar is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Kaithal.

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Kaithal 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.

08.09.2022                                     (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No

                Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                     4 of 4