Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Kaur vs Simarjeet Singh on 28 September, 2022
TA-1172-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
108
TA-1172-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.09.2022
Manjeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Simarjeet Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate
for the petitioner.
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, Tarn Taran to the competent Court
of jurisdiction at Ajnala, District Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of
a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. as well as a petition under the provisions of of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Ajnala, District Amritsar,
which are pending. It is further submitted that as a counter-blast to the
aforesaid cases, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under
Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act at Tarn Taran 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 55 Kms
between the aforesaid two places.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
otherwise, as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction
1 of 4
TA-1172-2022 (O&M) -2-
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
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
2 of 4
TA-1172-2022 (O&M) -3-
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
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 issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying
further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will
have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view
of the fact that in case notice of motion is issued, even the
respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in also in view
of the judgments rendered in Sumita Singh's case, Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi's case as well as 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, pending before the
Family Court, Tarn Taran will be transferred to
the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ajnala,
District Amritsar..
3 of 4
TA-1172-2022 (O&M) -4-
(ii) The District Judge, Amritsar will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court, Tarn Taran is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Amritsar.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Ajnala, District Amritsar 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.
However, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to revive
this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-
(i) The respondent will clear all the arrears of
maintenance amount, if any, in terms of the
petition filed by the petitioner either under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the
Domestic Violence Act or Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
(ii) The respondent will file an affidavit giving
undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the
petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at
Tarn Taran, on each and every date of hearing.
(iii) The respondent will bring a demand draft of
Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the
petitioner to pursue the case at Tarn Taran, in
case the respondent opts to contest this petition.
28.09.2022 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
