Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha Devi vs Rakesh Kumar on 10 April, 2024
Author: Vikas Suri
Bench: Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050029
2024:PHHC: 050029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217 TA-843-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.04.2024
Neha Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. V.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
1. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer
of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') titled as Rakesh Kumar vs.
Neha, pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rewari to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurugram.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits:-
i) That the parties were married on 12.12.2013 according to
Hindu rites and ceremonies.
ii) That out of the wedlock, two male children were born,
namely Vihan and Dishant.
iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the
respondent-husband and is living with her parents.
iv) That petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the
petitioner-wife is pending before the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Gurugram.
v) That the distance between place of residence of the
petitioner-wife i.e. Gurugram and the place of proceedings
under Section 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband,
is about 60 kilometers on one side.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050029
TA-843-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC: 050029
3. Upon notice, respondent-husband put in appearance through
counsel who had sought time to file reply. Vide order dated 30.01.2024,
learned counsel for the respondent had sought more time to file reply to
the present petition, which was granted subject to payment of costs. On
resumed hearing today, no one appears for the respondent. It is apparent
from the conduct of the respondent-husband the he is not serious to
contest the present proceedings. Accordingly, this petition is being
disposed of in his absence.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, 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 SCC Online SC 1199, 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.
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050029
TA-843-2023 -3- 2024:PHHC: 050029
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 reliance can be placed upon the judgments in
Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor
Pardeshi vs. 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."
7. 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.
8. After going through the record 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050029
TA-843-2023 -4- 2024:PHHC: 050029
Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition
with the following directions:-
a) The petition filed by respondent husband under
Section 9 of Act, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. Neha,
pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Rewari is transferred to a Court of
competent jurisdiction at Gurugram.
b) The learned District Judge, Rewari is directed to
transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid
case to District Judge, Gurugram.
c) The parties are directed to appear before the District
Judge, Gurugram on 15.05.2024.
d) The District Judge, Rohtak will assign the said
petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. The concerned Court at Gurugram 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.
10. The petition is disposed of.
11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
12. Copy of this order be sent to both the District Judges
concerned, for information and necessary compliance.
(VIKAS SURI)
April 10, 2024 JUDGE
sumit.k
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
