Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kajal Rana vs Rajat on 5 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:155258
TA-989-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 TA-989-2023
Decided on: 05.12.2023
Kajal Rana ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Rajat ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Pankaj Bali, 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 applicant-wife, for seeking transfer of the petition bearing
No.HMA/1591/2023 filed by the respondent-husband, under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Raja Rana Vs. Kajal Rana",
presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Ludhiana, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Karnal.
2. Despite service, there is no representation on behalf of the
respondent-husband.
3. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the
following grounds:-
i) Applicant-wife and respondent-husband got married in
23.02.2023, at Karnal, according to the Hindu rites and
ceremonies, however, no child is born out of the said wedlock.
ii) Applicant-wife has instituted three litigations against the
respondent-husband, which are pending in the Courts at Karnal,
are as under:
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:155258
(i) complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act (Annexure P-2);
(ii) petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for seeking
maintenance (Annexure P-3);
(iii) FIR No.94 daed 15.07.2023, under Sections 323, 34, 354,
406, 498A and 506 IPC registered at Women Police
Station Karnal against the respondent and his family
members.
iii) Traveling from Karnal to Ludhiana, is a distance of around 190
Kms (one side), which takes around 3 ½ hours, thus, causing
extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.
iv) Petitioner-wife is not earning anything, whereas respondent-
husband is working as Sales Manager in HDFC Bank at
Ludhiana and earning Rs.1.25 lacs per month.
v) Petitioner wife is financially dependent on her parents. Due to
lack of convenient transportation options, she is compelled to
rely on public transport, resulting in significant hardships.
vi) Financial condition of the parental home of the petitioner-wife
is also not sound, and her parental family lives in a hand to
mouth condition.
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:155258
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
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,
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:155258
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;
(f) Pending litigation(s) between the parties including
criminal cases, if any;
(g) Accessibility of the location from where the wife resides
to the court where the case is pending;
(h) 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. HMA/1591/2023 titled
as "Rajat Rana Vs. Kajal", pending in the Court of learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, is
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
Neutral Citation No.:2023:PHHC:155258
transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction within Sessions
Division Karnal.
(ii) Learned District Judge, Ludhiana, is directed to transfer
complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned
District Judge, Karnal, by directing both the sides to appear
before the Court of learned District Judge Karnal, on a
particular date to be fixed by him, for further proceedings.
(iii) On receipt of record of the case, learned District Judge, Karnal,
will either keep the said case in his own Court or to assign the
same to a Court having competent jurisdiction within Sessions
Division Karnal, to try the same.
(iv) The concerned Court at Karnal, 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 Karnal, 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,
Ludhiana and learned District Judge, Karnal, through email (s) as well.
Petitioner through her counsel, is also directed to ensure her
appearance accordingly.
Petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
05.12.2023
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155258
5 of 5
