Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamaldeep Kaur vs Preet Mandeep Singh on 24 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:150175
TA-812-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 TA-812-2023
Decided on: 24.11.2023
Kamaldeep Kaur
...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Preet Mandeep Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Arun Singal, 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 bearing
No.HMA/639/2023 filed by the respondent-husband, under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Preet Mandeep Singh vs. Kamaldeep
Kaur", presently pending in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Faridabad, to any Court of competent jurisdiction Panipat.
2. As per office report, notice sent to the respondent-husband is
received back served through his father. Despite service, none appeared on
behalf of the respondent.
3. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:150175
following grounds:-
i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on
14.04.2018, at Panipat, according to the Sikh rites and
ceremonies, however, no child is born out of the said wedlock.
ii) Petitioner-wife has filed a complaint against respondent-
husband before the Station House Office, Women Police State
Panipat. Petitioner-wife has also filed a petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending in the Family
Court at Panipat.
iii) Traveling from Panipat to Faridabad, is a distance of around
130 Kms (one side), which takes around 2 ½ hour, thus,
causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.
iv) Petitioner-wife is not earning anything and 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.
v) 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
called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:150175
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,
therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:150175
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 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Preet Mandeep Singh Vs.
Kamaldeep Kaur", pending in the Court of learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, is transferred to a
Court of competent jurisdiction within Sessions Division
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:150175
Panipat.
(ii) Learned District Judge, Faridabad, is directed to transfer
complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to learned
District Judge, Panipat, by directing both the sides to appear
before the Court of learned District Judge Panipat, on a
particular date to be fixed by him, for further proceedings.
(iii) On receipt of record of the case, learned District Judge, Panipat,
will either keep the said case in his own Court or to assign the
same to a Court having competent jurisdiction within Sessions
Division Panipat, to try the same.
(iv) The concerned Court at Panipat, 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 Panipat, 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,
Faridabad and learned District Judge, Panipat, 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
24.11.2023
rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:150175
5 of 5
