Suresh Kumari vs Rinku
2022 Latest Caselaw 11979 P&H

TA-604-2020 (O&M)                                                        -1-


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

221
                                                       TA-604-2020 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 22.09.2022

Suresh Kumari                                                       ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

Rinku                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-    Mr. R. S. Jammu, Advocate and
             Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Krishan Singh, 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 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

pending before the Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri to the

competent Court of jurisdiction at Kurukshetra.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of

a matrimonial discord, the petitioner is residing at Kurukshetra and has got

registered FIR No. 165 dated 13.04.2019, under Sections 323, 406, 498-A

of the IPC at Kurukshetra, which is pending. It is further submitted that as a

counter-blast to the aforesaid case, the respondent-husband has filed the

present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at at Jagadhri

in order to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is

facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of

about 45 Kms between the aforesaid two places.

                               1 of 4

 TA-604-2020 (O&M)                                                     -2-

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.

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

2 of 4

TA-604-2020 (O&M) -3-

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 parties, 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, at Jagadhri will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kurukshetra.

(ii) The District Judge, Kurukshetra will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

                                 3 of 4

 TA-604-2020 (O&M)                                                           -4-

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

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

22.09.2022                                     (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     4 of 4