Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harleen Kaur vs Gurpreet Singh on 27 September, 2022
TA-221-2021 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
219
TA-221-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.09.2022
Harleen Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurpreet Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Ms. Rabani Attri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Sachdeva, 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,
1890, pending before the Family Court, Bathinda to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has relied
upon order dated 22.07.2022 passed in TA-687-2021, vide which a petition
filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act has already been transferred to Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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
1 of 4
TA-221-2021 (O&M) -2-
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
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."
2 of 4
TA-221-2021 (O&M) -3-
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 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, pending before
the Family Court, Bathinda will be transferred to
the competent Court of jurisdiction at Patiala.
(ii) The District Judge, Patiala will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Bathinda is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Patiala.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Patiala within a period of 01 month
3 of 4
TA-221-2021 (O&M) -4-
from today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are
pending between the parties, will accommodate
them with one date in a calendar month.
27.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
