Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja Rani vs Sanjeev Kumar on 12 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 TA-1484-2023 (O&M)
Decided on: 12.12.2023
Pooja Rani ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, 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/278/2023, filed by the respondent-husband, under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Pooja Rani",
presently pending in the Court of Learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
SBS Nagar, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur.
2. Vide order dated 17.11.2023, while issuing notice of motion the
following order was passed by this Court:
'Present: Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate
For the applicant-petitioner.
****
1. Order dated 16.11.2023, says as under:
"Present: Mr. Amrit Singh Kang,
Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.
-.-
In Para No.2 of the present
petition, it has been averred that
marriage between
applicant/petitioner(wife) and
respondent (husband) was solemnized
on 02.05.2018, as per Christian rites
and ceremonies in CNI Church,
Khnaura, District Hoshiarpur,
whereas the respondent (husband)
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -2-
has filed petition under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(Annexure P-1), stating therein that
marriage was performed on
02.05.2017, as per religious rites and
ceremonies prevailing in their
community, at village Khanora, PS
Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, and in
para No.2 of the said petition,
religion of the parties has been
mentioned as "Hindu".
Faced with this situation,
learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner prays for a short
accommodation, enabling him to seek
instructions with regard to correct
date of marriage, and according to
which rites and ceremonies marriage
between the parties was solemnized.
Adjourned to 17.11.2023."
2. Learned counsel submits that in fact, in the
petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (in short, 'HMA'), certain wrong facts
have also been stated by the respondent-husband,
therefore, visiting of the petitioner to the Courts at
SBS Nagar, would be a futile exercise, because, there
are so many discrepancies in the petition filed under
Section 9 of HMA, itself.
3. Notice of motion for 12.12.2023.
Meanwhile, further proceedings in the petition filed
under Section 9 of the HMA, in the Courts at SBS
Nagar, would remain stayed.
To be shown in the urgent list.'
3. As per office report, notice sent to the respondent has been
received back, served through his mother. In this regard learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that in fact, respondent is evading the service because
the address given is the same, which was given by him in the divorce
petition.
Otherwise, also this Court is of the view that for the issue to be
adjudicated by this Court, on the basis of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex
Court; service upon the respondent is not required and same should be
exempted at this stage.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -3-
4. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the
following grounds:-
i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on
02.05.2018, at CNI Church, Khnaura, District Hoshiarpur,
according to the Christian rites and ceremonies.
ii) Out of the said wedlock, two female child namely, Gurkirat and
Samreet Kaur, were born, who are now aged about 05 years and
02 years respectively and are residing with the applicant-wife.
iii) Petitioner-wife has filed a petition under Section 10 of the
Divorce Act, 1872, which is pending in the Court at Hoshiarpur
and respondent is contesting the same.
iv) Traveling from Hoshiarpur to SBS Nagar, is a distance of
around 65 Km (one side), which takes around 1 hours, thus,
causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife as well as the
minor children.
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.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
the material available on record.
6. 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -4-
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."
7. 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."
8. 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -5-
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."
9. 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.
10. 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 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Pooja
Rani", pending in the Court of Learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, SBS Nagar, is transferred to a Court of competent
jurisdiction within Sessions Division Hoshiarpur.
(ii) Learned District Judge, SBS Nagar, is directed to transfer
complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:158890
TA-1484-2023 (O&M) -6-
District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by directing both the sides to appear
before the Court of learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on a
particular date to be fixed by him, for further proceedings.
(iii) On receipt of record of the case, learned District Judge,
Hoshiarpur, will either keep the said case in his own Court or to
assign the same to a Court having competent jurisdiction within
Sessions Division Hoshiarpur, to try the same.
(iv) The concerned Court at Hoshiarpur, 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 Hoshiarpur, the concerned Court will
accommodate the parties to the lis with at least one date in a
calendar month.
11. For compliance of the order passed by this Court, Registry is
directed to transmit copies of this order forthwith to learned District Judge,
SBS Nagar and learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, 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
12.12.2023
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:158890
6 of 6
