Punjab-Haryana High Court
Preeti Alias Priti vs Sunil Kumar on 5 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117311
TA-883-2023 -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117311
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
277 TA-883-2023
Date of decision: 05.09.2023
PREETI ALIAS PRITI ...APPLICANT
Versus
SUNIL KUMAR ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. L.K. Narang, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the
respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
pending before the Family Court, Bhiwani to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Meham, District Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that two minor
daughters are residing in the care and custody of the petitioner and the
petitioner is residing at Meham, District Rohtak on account of a matrimonial
discord, has filed a complaints under Section 125 Cr.P.C and under Section
12 DV Act, which is pending. It is further submitted that the respondent-
husband has filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act at Bhiwani in order to harass the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said
case, as there is a distance of about 50 Kms between the aforesaid two
places.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117311
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117311
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh
Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor
Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022
Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,
wherein 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.
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117311
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117311
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."
Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has opposed the
prayer of the petitioner-wife.
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
family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition
of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and
most important, 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.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, considering the fact
that if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have
to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view
of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's
case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's
case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition,
with the following directions:-
(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court,
Bhiwani will be transferred to the competent
Court of jurisdiction at Meham, District Rohtak.
(ii) The District Judge, Rohtak will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction at
Meham.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117311
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:117311
(iii) The Family Court at Bhiwani is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Rohtak.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Rohtak within a period of 01 month from
today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are
pending between the parties, will accommodate
them with one date in a calendar month.
05.09.2023 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
pry JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117311
4 of 4
