Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam vs Manoj Lather on 28 September, 2022
TA No.1146 of 2021 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.1146 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.09.2022
Poonam
....Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Lather
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Goyat, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ishita Jain, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family
Court, Karnal to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jind.
Vide order dated 18.11.2021, the following order was
passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the distance the petitioner-wife would have to travel
from her place of residence in Jind to Karnal where the
respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of
marriage is more than 90 kilometres one way and that
there are two more cases filed by the petitioner - one
under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and the
other under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - which are already pending
1 of 4
TA No.1146 of 2021 (O&M)
at Jind.
Notice of motion returnable 23.11.2021."
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a
matrimonial discord, the respondent/husband has filed the petition
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Karnal.
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
about 90 Kms from Jind to Karnal.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the
ground taken in the divorce petition by the respondent/husband is that
the petitioner is suffering from Arthritis, which itself show that she is
unable to attend the Court proceedings at Karnal.
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
2 of 4
TA No.1146 of 2021 (O&M)
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
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.
Counsel for the respondent has, however, not disputed the
factual position but opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
3 of 4
TA No.1146 of 2021 (O&M)
After hearing the counsel for the parties, 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 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, pending before the Family Court, Karnal will be
transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jind.
2. The District Judge, Jind, will assign the said petition to
the competent Court of jurisdiction.
3. The Family Court, Karnal is directed to transfer all the
record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge,
Jind.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,
Jind, within a period of 01 month from today.
5. The Family Court, Jind 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
28.09.2022
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
