Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonia Singla vs Sumit Kansal on 18 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
TA-1058-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
TA-1058-2023
Decided on: 18.12.2023
Sonia Singla
...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Sumit Kansal
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Ms. Reet Kaur Arora, Advocate for
Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate
for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate,
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 petitions (i) Civil Suit
No.491 of 2023 titled as 'Sumit Kansal versus Sonia Singla', presently
pending in the Court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at
Mansa, District Mansa.
2. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the
following grounds:-
i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on
04.12.2015, at Mansa, according to the 'Saptapadi' ceremonies.
ii) Out of the said wedlock, one child (son), now aged about 6 ½
years, was born, who is minor and staying/residing with the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
applicant - petitioner, and she is taking care of him all alone.
iii) Petitioner-wife is working as Asstt. Professor at GHG Khalsa
College of Pharmacy at Ludhiana and the respondent-husband
is working as SDO/AEE in PSPCL, Ludhiana.
iv) Present place of residence of the applicant/petitioner to
Malerkotla, is at a distance of about 90-95 Kms. (one side),
thus, causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.
v) Since the petitioner-wife is residing with her parents at Mansa,
and due to the long distance, between Mansa and Malerkotla,
she is compelled to rely on public transit, thus resulting in
significant hardships.
vi) Besides, following litigations are also pending between the
parties:-
(i) FIR No.217 dated 19.07.2019 under Sections 323, 307
IPC registered by Police Station, Ludhiana.
(ii) Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance.
(iii) Petition under Guardians and Wards Act.
(iv) Divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (already transferred by this Court vide order
dated 24.02.2023, Annexure P-1).
3. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Aziz, counsel for the respondent-
husband vehemently argues that there is no substantial reason for
transferring the proceedings of the divorce petition from the Court of Ld.
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, District Malerkotla to
the Court of competent jurisdiction at Mansa, District Mansa. He also
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
submits that keeping in view the conduct of the applicant-petitioner (wife),
he is not entitled for equity based justice. Therefore, he opposed the prayer
made in the present application for transfer of case from Malerkotla to
Mansa.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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
weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
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;
(f) Pending litigation(s) between the parties including
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
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. Considering the aforementioned settled legal proposition of law
and facts of the present case, the submission made by learned counsel for the
respondent is not tenable and the same is hereby rejected.
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) Petitions i.e. (i) Civil Suit No.491 of 2023 titled as 'Sumit
Kansal versus Sonia Singla' (ii) petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. (iii) Divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband
under Section 13 of HMA and (iv) petition under Guardians &
Wards Act filed by the respondent/husband, presently pending
in the Court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
pending in the Courts at Malerkotla, District Malerkotla, are
transferred to the Courts of competent jurisdiction within
Sessions Division Ludhiana.
(ii) Learned District Judge, Sangrur, is directed to transfer complete
record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned District Judge,
Ludhiana, by directing both the sides to appear before the Court
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:162649
of learned District Judge, Ludhiana, on a particular date to be
fixed by him, for further proceedings.
(iii) On receipt of record of the case, learned District Judge,
Ludhiana, will either keep the said case in his own Court or to
assign the same to a Court having competent jurisdiction within
Sessions Division Ludhiana, to try the same.
(iv) The concerned Court at Ludhiana, 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 Ludhiana/Mansa, 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,
Sangrur and learned District Judge, Ludhiana, 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
December 18, 2023
'Rajneesh'
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162649
6 of 6
