Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramanpreet Kaur vs Sukhchain Singh on 20 September, 2022
TA No.431 of 2022 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.431 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.09.2022
Ramanpreet Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
Sukhchain Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family
Court, Camp Court Guhla, District Kaithal to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Camp Court Samana, District Patiala.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a
matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and a petition/complaint under the Domestic Violence Act
at Camp Court Samana, District Patiala.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Camp Court Guhla, District Kaithal.
Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on account
of a petition filed by the respondent/husband, the petitioner is facing
great difficulty in prosecuting the said case as there is a distance of
1 of 4
TA No.431 of 2022 (O&M)
about 60 Kms from Camp Court Samana, District Patiala to Camp
Court Guhla, District Kaithal.
Counsel for the petitioner 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 has 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."
Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment "N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha," 2022
Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
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.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are
2 of 4
TA No.431 of 2022 (O&M)
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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor
child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning
capacity of the husband and most important the 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.
As per the office report, the respondent has been served
through affixation, however, there is no representation on his behalf.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the
fact that the petitioner/wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and
transportation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. 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, Camp Court Guhla,
District Kaithal will be transferred to the competent Court
of jurisdiction at Camp Court Samana, District Patiala.
2. The District Judge, Patiala, will assign the said petition to
the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3 of 4
TA No.431 of 2022 (O&M)
3. The Family Court, Camp Court Guhla, District Kaithal is
directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the
aforesaid case to District Judge, Patiala.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
Camp Court Samana, District Patiala, within a period of
01 month from today.
5. The Family Court, Camp Court Samana, District Patiala
will make all endeavour to refer the case before the
Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the
possibility of some amicable settlement between the
parties.
6. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending
between the parties, will accommodate them with one date
in one calendar month.
Disposed of.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
20.09.2022
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
