Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tanu @ Tanisha vs Mohit Bansal on 1 August, 2024
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097960
1
TA-1333-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.212
TA-1333-2022
Date of Decision: 01.08.2024
TANU @ TANISHA
....Applicant
Versus
MOHIT BANSAL
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present:- Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
*****
ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)
Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate, has made appearance on behalf of
the appellant and filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.
The applicant-wife has filed the present application for seeking
transfer of the divorce petition i.e. HMA/603/2018, titled 'Mohit Bansal Vs.
Tanu @ Tanisha', filed at the instance of respondent-husband, pending in
Family Court Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, to the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Ludhiana.
In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent has made
appearance through counsel and filed reply.
Learned counsel for the parties heard.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097960
TA-1333-2022
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
marriage between the parties to the lis had taken place on 05.05.2011 at
Ludhiana, but however, no child was born from this wedlock. However, due
to matrimonial discord, they are residing separate. The applicant is residing
with her parents at Ludhiana and she is taking care of her aged parents, who
have no source of earnings. The father of the applicant is also stated to be
suffering from heart disease and undergoing treatment from Hospital at
Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana. It is further submitted
that the brother of the applicant is doing service at Gurugram and as such,
there is no other male member to accompany the applicant to defend the
divorce petition. Also, it is submitted that the distance between Jagadhri and
Ludhiana is 165 kilometres. As such, a prayer has been made for transfer of
the case, pending at Family Court (Camp Court) Jagadhri, District
Yamunanagar, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband
has submitted that the applicant is a graduate and she is working in a reputed
pharma company at Ludhiana and earning handsome amount. The present
application has been filed, solely on account of misuse of the provision of
law, for seeking transfer of the case. In this regard, learned counsel for the
respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of 'Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das' (2006) 9 SCC
197 and 'Delma Lubna Coelho Vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes' 2023 SCC
Online SC 440, to emphasize that the instant application is solely a misuse
of the provision of law. As such, he makes a prayer for dismissal of the
application.
In view of the respective submissions, made by learned
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097960
TA-1333-2022
counsel for the parties, beneficial reference is made to N.C.V. Aishwarya vs.
A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 INSC 1310, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court made observations, with regard to the various conditions,
ought to be taken into consideration, while dealing with the transfer of the
legal proceedings, which are reproduced, as herein given:-
"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
socio-economic 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."
Also, reference is made to Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and
another, 2001(10) SCC 41, and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babular
Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein, it has been observed that
convenience of the wife is to be preferred and looked into.
It is well settled that while considering the transfer of the
matrimonial dispute/case, the Court is to consider the family condition of the
wife, custody of the children, economic condition of the wife, her physical
health and the extent of her earning capacity, as well as earning capacity of
the husband and most important, convenience of the wife, more particularly,
considering the distance between the two places, where the litigation is
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097960
TA-1333-2022
already pending and is proposed to be now transferred and also about the
connectivity of the place from her place of residence and bearing of the
litigation charges and travelling expenses.
Even though, in the case law, cited by learned counsel for the
respondent, the transfer applications were dismissed, but however, this was
so done, while taking into consideration the factual position existing in the
case under consideration. However, it is not mandatory to make observation
that all transfer applications are the misuse of the provision of law. Rather,
in Anindita Das's case (supra), it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that may be this leniency was being misused by the women, but however, it
was further observed that each and every case has to be considered, on its
own merits.
Now, reverting to the case in hand, it is pertinent to mention
that the distance of the place, where the divorce petition has been filed, is at
a distance of 165 kilometres. This distance in itself, is a major ground for
the applicant to seek transfer of the case, more particularly, when she is
looking after the aged parents, while her brother is settled in Gurugram.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, without
prejudice to the rights of the parties to be adjudicated on merits, the
application, as such, is hereby accepted and the divorce petition i.e.
HMA/603/2018, titled 'Mohit Bansal Vs. Tanu @ Tanisha', filed at the
instance of respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court
(Camp Court) Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, to the Court of competent
jurisdiction at Ludhiana. The requisite record of the aforesaid divorce
petition shall be transferred by the Family Court (Camp Court) Jagadhri,
District Yamunanagar, to District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097960
TA-1333-2022
Learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, shall assign the
said petition to the Family Court Ludhiana. Even, the parties are directed to
appear before the Family Court, Ludhiana, within a period of one month
from today onwards.
(ARCHANA PURI)
01.08.2024 JUDGE
Himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
