Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Kaur Alias Jasdeep Kaur vs Arshdeep Singh on 11 January, 2023
T.A.No.29-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
TA No.29-2023
Date of decision: 11.01.2023
JAGDEEP KAUR @ JASDEEP KAUR ...Petitioner(s)
vs
ARSHDEEP SINGH ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. D.P.S. Bajwa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner through her
father/Power of Attorney Holder.
2. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner wife is for transfer of
petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act, titled "Arshdeep Singh vs. Jagdeep Kaur @ Jasdeep Kaur" pending
in the Court of learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fatehgarh
Sahib, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Narwana, Jind.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that:
i) that the parties were married on 19.11.2021 according
to Sikh rites and rituals.
ii) that this is the second marriage of the petitioner; she
has a daughter from previous marriage and no child was
born out of the present wedlock between the petitioner
and the respondent.
iii) that the petitioner along with minor daughter from
previous marriage is presently living at Australia.
iv) that present litigation is being pursued by father of the
petitioner who is living at Narwana, Jind.
1 of 6
v) that the father of the petitioner is an old aged person
and suffering from heart disease and is undergoing
treatment for the same. The mother and brother of the
petitioner are also residing in Australia, and as such
nobody can accompany the petitioner's father to appear
before the learned Court at Fatehgarh Sahib.
vi) that distance between place of residence and place of
proceedings is about 130 kms. (one side)
vii) that the petitioner has also filed complaint under
Sections 406, 468-A and other relevant Sections of IPC
which is pending before the Superintendent of Police,
Jind.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The present petition emanates from matrimonial discord
between the parties. The legal position in such like cases as the present
one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,"
2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the 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.
2 of 6
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."
5. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in "Sumita
Singh vs Kumar Sanjay", 2002 SC 396 and "Rajani Kishor
Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi", 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 ordinarily be
allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts
should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."
6. Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid
principle of law. Accordingly, 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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the
minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and
earning capacity of the husband and most important the 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.
7. After going through the entire paperbook, 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
3 of 6
will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and
in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to
bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita
Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V.
Aishwarya's case (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the
following conditions:-
a) The petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13
of Hindu Marriage Act, titled "Arshdeep Singh vs. Jagdeep
Kaur @ Jasdeep Kaur" pending in the Court of Principal
Judge, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, is transferred to a court
of competent jurisdiction at Narwana, Jind.
b) The ld. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is directed to
transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to
District Judge, Narwana, Jind.
c) The parties are directed to appear before the District &
Sessions Judge, Narwana, Jind on 27.02.2023.
d) The District Judge, Narwana, Jind will assign the said
petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
8. The concerned Court at Narwana, Jind will make all
endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the
parties.
9. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending between
the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.
4 of 6
10. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this
petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-
(a) The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance
amount, if any, in terms of any 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.
(b) The respondent will file an affidavit giving
undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner
for attending the Court proceedings at District Court,
Fatehgarh Sahib on each and every date of hearing.
(c) The respondent will bring a demand draft of
Rs.25,000/-, drawn in favour of petitioner, towards the
litigation expenses to pursue the case at Fatehgarh Sahib
in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.
11. I am supported in the above by decisions rendered by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v
Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet
Singh; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.
12. As already noticed above, since the petition is being disposed
of without issuing notice to the respondent, accordingly, in these peculiar
circumstances, in order to ensure appearance of the parties before the
District Judge, Narwana, Jind on 27.02.2023, it is directed that a copy of
this order be sent to the respondent(s) through registered post, besides
sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e-
5 of 6
mail. Petitioner through her counsel, present in the Court, is directed to
ensure her appearance accordingly.
Disposed of.
11.01.2023 (Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
