Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dimple Gautam vs Suresh Kumar Gautam on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
TA-997-2023 -1-
219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
TA-997-2023
Decided on: 05.12.2023
Dimple Gautam ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar Gautam ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate
for the Applicant/petitioner.
None for the respondent.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present transfer application, under Section 24 CPC, has been
filed by the petitioner - wife, for seeking transfer of the petition filed by the
respondent - husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
bearing No. DMC/94/2023, titled as "Suresh Kumar Gautam vs. Dimple
Gautam", presently pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Panipat to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Sangrur.
2. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the
following grounds:-
i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on
11.05.2012, at Raj Garden Palace, District Panipat, according to
the Hindu rites and ceremonies.
ii) Out of the said wedlock, no child is born.
iii) Petitioner-wife has no independent source of income and she is
dependant upon/residing with her parents at Sangrur, while
respondent-husband is serving as Chief Officer in Merchant
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
Navy and is earning monthly salary of about Rs.4,00,000/- per
month.
iv) Present place of residence of the applicant/petitioner to Panipat
is at a distance of about 185 Kms. (one side), thus, causing
extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.
v) Since the petitioner-wife is residing with her parents and lacks
convenient transportation options, thus, she is compelled to rely
on public transit, resulting in significant hardships.
vi) Petitioner-wife has also instituted three litigations against the
respondent-husband, details of which are mentioned as under:-
a) Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for grant of
maintenance is pending before Principal Judge, Family Court at
Sangrur.
b) Complaint under Section 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which
is pending before Family Court at Sangrur.
c) That respondent has performed his second marriage with
one girl namely Arti, without taking divorce from the petitioner,
due to which one FIR No.08 of 2023 has been lodged by the
petitioner-wife under Section 406, 498-A and 494 IPC
registered at Women Police Station, Sangrur against the
respondent, his father namely Gulab Singh and his second wife
namely Arti.
3. As per office report, notice issued to the respondent has been
received back with the report of incomplete address.
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
Counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that address of the
respondent given in the present petition is the same which is mentioned in
the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, despite
there being proper address, service is being deliberately avoided by the
respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the material available on record.
5. In the facts and circumstances similar to the present case, in
paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of N.C.V.
Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR 2022 SC 4318, Hon'ble the
Apex 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."
6. Further, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Rajani Kishor Pradeshi v.
Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, has observed that "while
deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and
transfer of legal proceedings from one court to another should ordinary be
allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should
desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."
7. However, to avoid any misuse of the lenient view by the female
litigants, Hon'ble the Apex Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9
SCC 197, has also cautioned that the Courts should ensure that such
leniency given to the female litigants should not be misused. Relevant
Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment says as under:
"3. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this
Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has
been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed
by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by this
Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are
on Board of each Court on each admission day. It is,
therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by
the women."
8. Thus, this Court is of the view that while adjudicating a transfer
petition initiated by the wife in the context of a matrimonial dispute, the
Court must take into account a comprehensive array of the following
factors:-
(a) Economic condition and earning capacity of the parties,
i.e. husband and wife;
(b) Social standing of the wife and her dependency on her
parents;
(c) Custody of any minor children involved;
(d) Education of the children, if any;
(e) Physical well-being of both, i.e. wife and husband;
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
(f) Pending litigation(s) between the parties including
criminal cases, if any;
(h) Accessibility of the location from where the wife resides
to the court where the case is pending;
(i) Availability of convenient commuting options
Undoubtedly, only a harmonious consideration of all these vital
aspects would ensure a just and equitable decision in such cases.
9. Thus, applying the principles of law, laid down by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in N.C.V Aishwarya's case (supra), Rajani Kishor's case
(supra) and Anindita Das's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to
allow the present petition, by issuing following directions:
(i) Petition filed by respondent - husband under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing No. DMC/94/2023, titled as
"Suresh Kumar Gautam vs. Dimple Gautam", presently pending
in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panipat,
is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction within
Sessions Division Sangrur.
(ii) Learned District Judge, Panipat, is directed to transfer complete
record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned District Judge,
Sangrur, by directing both the sides to appear before the Court
of learned District Judge, Sangrur, on a particular date to be
fixed by him, for further proceedings.
(iii) On receipt of record of the case, learned District Judge,
Sangrur, will either keep the said case in his own Court or to
assign the same to a Court having competent jurisdiction within
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC: 155156
Sessions Division Sangrur, to try the same.
(iv) The concerned Court at Sangrur, shall diligently strive to
amicably resolve the marital discord between the parties by
referring the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
(v) After transfer at Sangrur, the concerned Court will
accommodate the parties to the lis with at least one date in a
calendar month.
10. For compliance of the order passed by this Court, Registry is
directed to transmit copies of this order forthwith to learned District Judge,
Panipat and learned District Judge, Sangrur, through email(s) as well.
Parties through their counsel are also directed to ensure their
appearance accordingly.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
05.12.2023
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
