Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika vs Mandeep Singh on 28 September, 2022
TA-1039-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA-1039-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.09.2022
Monika
....Petitioner
Vs.
Mandeep Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Rahul Makkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Nahel, 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, pending
before the Family Court, Patiala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at
Rohtak.
While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by
this Court on 28.10.2021: -
"...The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was
solemnized on 21.10.2015 at Rohtak. It is case the petitioner
that ever since the marriage of the petitioner, she has been
1 of 5
harassed, humiliated and even tortured by the respondent and
his family members. She has been deserted since 21.12.2015.
Number of times Panchayat was convened, The respondent
agreed to take the petitioner back, however, such commitments
were never honored.
The petitioner got registered FIR No. 342 dated
08.11.2017, under Section 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, at Women
Police Station Rohtak against the respondent(husband) and
other family members. She has also filed a complaint under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, which is pending at Rohtak. A petition under Section
125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and litigation expenses is also
pending before Principal Judge, Family Court Rohtak.
It is stated that in order to harass the petitioner, the
respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the District
Judge Patiala. It is difficult for the petitioner to travel from
Rohtak to Patiala to attend the Court proceedings as the
distance is more than 230 kms. The petitioner has no
independent source of income, she is fully dependent on her
parents..."
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh
Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor
2 of 5
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.
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
3 of 5
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 has, however, opposed the
prayer for transfer of petition filed by the respondent-husband.
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 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 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
pending before the Family Court, Patiala will be transferred to
the competent Court of jurisdiction at Rohtak.
2. The District Judge, Rohtak will assign the said petition to the
competent Court of jurisdiction.
4 of 5
3. The Family Court, Patiala is directed to transfer all the record
pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Rohtak.
4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court,
Rohtak within a period of 01 month from today.
5. The Family Court, Rohtak will make all the 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
28.09.2022
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
