Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupika vs Surender Kumar And Anr on 12 September, 2022
TA Nos. 1068 & 1070 of 2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
102+104
1. TA-1068-2022 (O&M)
Rupika ...Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar and another ...Respondents
2. TA-1070-2022 (O&M)
Rupika Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Nitish Yadav, Advocate
for the petitioner in both cases.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
This common order shall disposed of above mentioned two
transfer petitions as they are similar in nature.
Prayer in these petitions is for transfer of the petitions filed by
the respondents under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 as well under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, both
pending before the Family Court, Narnaul to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Rewari.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of
a matrimonial discord, the petitioner is residing at Rewari and in order to
1 of 5
TA Nos. 1068 & 1070 of 2022 (O&M) -2-
harass the petitioner, the respondents have filed the aforesaid petitions at
Narnaul. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in
prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 74 Kms between
the aforesaid two places.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody,
therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Narnaul.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
otherwise, as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the
jurisdiction will be at a place, where the minor child is residing.
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,
2 of 5
TA Nos. 1068 & 1070 of 2022 (O&M) -3-
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
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."
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 issuance of notice to the respondents has the consequences of staying
further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will
have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view
3 of 5
TA Nos. 1068 & 1070 of 2022 (O&M) -4-
of the fact that in case notice of motion is issued, even the
respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in also in view
of the judgments rendered in Sumita Singh's case, Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi's case as well as N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra), this Court
deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following
directions:-
(i) The aforesaid petitions, pending before the
Family Court, Narnaul will be transferred to the
competent Court of jurisdiction at Rewari..
(ii) The District Judge, Rewari will assign the said
petitions to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court, Narnaul is directed to transfer
all the record pertaining to the aforesaid cases to
District Judge, Rewari.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Rewari 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
these petitions, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-
(i) The respondent-husband 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-husband will file an affidavit giving
undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the
petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at
4 of 5
TA Nos. 1068 & 1070 of 2022 (O&M) -5-
Narnaul, on each and every date of hearing.
(iii) The respondent-husband will bring a demand
draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation
expenses of the petitioner to pursue the case at
Narnaul, in case the respondent-husband opts to
contest this petition.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected
case.
12.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
