Sweety vs Simratpal
2022 Latest Caselaw 10967 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10967 P&H
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sweety vs Simratpal on 12 September, 2022

TA-446-2021                                                        -1-



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                               TA-446-2021 (O&M)
                                               Date of decision: 12.09.2022
Sweety
                                                                   ....Petitioner

                                         Vs.

Simratpal
                                                                 ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:     Mr. Varun Dhawan, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. G.S. Ghuman, 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 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,

pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of

jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account

of matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Chandigarh. It is

further submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting

the petition filed by the respondent, as there is a distance of about 220 kms

from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur.

Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is

1 of 4

having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody and she is facing

difficulty to defend the case, as she has to travel from Chandigarh to

Gurdaspur.

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.

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

2 of 4

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."

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the

petition filed by the respondent-husband is transferred from Gurdaspur to

Chandigarh.

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 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.

3 of 4

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 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, pending before the Family Court, Gurdaspur will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Chandigarh.

2. The District Judge, Chandigarh will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. The Family Court, Gurdaspur is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Chandigarh.

4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Chandigarh within a period of 01 month from today.

5. The Family Court, Chandigarh will make all the endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.