Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjeet Kaur vs Jagtar Singh on 23 September, 2022
TA-306-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA-306-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.09.2022
Paramjeet Kaur
....Petitioner
Vs.
Jagtar Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the
respondent-husband under Sections 7, 17 & 25 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, pending before the Family Court, Fatehabad to the competent
Court of jurisdiction at Sri Muktsar Sahib.
There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. Since
vide order dated 17.03.2020, proceedings before the Family Court,
Fatehabad were stayed, it is a deemed notice to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that vide order
dated 26.02.2020 passed in TA-1116-2019, petition under Section 9 of
Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent was transferred from the Court
1 of 5
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehabad to District Judge, Sri Muktsar
Sahib. It is further submitted that the respondent has now filed the petition
under the Guardians and Wards Act for claiming custody of the minor
daughter, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehabad and the same
may also be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Sri Muktsar
Sahib. It is also submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the
petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Sri Muktsar
Sahib. 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 160 kms from Sri Muktsar Sahib to Fatehabad.
Learned counsel has further contended that minor daughter is
living in care and custody of the petitioner and she is facing difficulty to
defend the case, as she has to travel from Sri Muktsar Sahib to Fatehabad.
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.
2 of 5
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
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."
It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a
3 of 5
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 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.
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 under Sections 7, 17 & 25 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890, pending before the Family Court, Fatehabad
will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Sri
Muktsar Sahib.
2. The District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. The Family Court, Fatehabad is directed to transfer all the
record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Sri
Muktsar Sahib.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Sri
Muktsar Sahib within a period of 01 month from today.
5. The Family Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib will make all the
4 of 5
endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and
Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement between the parties.
6. The Court concerned, where the litigations between the parties
are pending, will accommodate them with one date in one
calender month.
Present petition is disposed of accordingly.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
JUDGE
23.09.2022
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
