Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Kaur @ Babi vs Darshna on 25 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126358
TA-684-2021 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:114904
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
239
TA-684-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.09.2023
Amandeep Kaur @ Babi ...Petitioner
Versus
Darshna ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. G. S. Bajwa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Chaudhary, 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 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act,
pending before the Family Court, Pathankot to the competent Court of
jurisdiction at Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of
a matrimonial discord, the petitioner is residing at Amritsar along with a
minor daughter, however, the respondent-husband has filed the present
petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act at Pathankot 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 150 Kms between the aforesaid two places.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh
Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126358
TA-684-2021 (O&M) -2-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:114904
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
decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable
that they should be tried together by the same Judge so
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126358
TA-684-2021 (O&M) -3-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:114904
as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and
conflict of decisions."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
otherwise also, in view of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, the
jurisdiction will lie at a place, where the minor child is residing.
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 25 of the
Guardian and Wards Act, pending before the
Family Court, Pathankot will be transferred to
the competent Court of jurisdiction at Amritsar.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126358
TA-684-2021 (O&M) -4-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:114904
(ii) The District Judge, Amritsar will assign the said
petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Pathankot is directed to
transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Amritsar.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial
Court at Amritsar 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.
25.09.2023 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126358
4 of 4
