Baljeet Kaur @ Soniya vs Jagdeep Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 10147 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10147 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 August, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Baljeet Kaur @ Soniya vs Jagdeep Singh on 3 August, 2022

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Transfer Appl. No. 149/2021

Baljeet Kaur @ Soniya W/o Jagdeep Singh, Aged About 34 Years, 105 Mukharjee Nagar, Srigannagar

----Petitioner Versus Jagdeep Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, House No. 35, Sector No. 12, Ward No. 12, New Ward No. 14, Near Mamta Hospital, Suratgarh Road, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Joshi on behalf of Mr. C.S. Kotwani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Kumar Bohra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

03/08/2022

The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-

wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking

transfer of restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

being Civil Misc. Case No. 119/2021 ("Jagdeep Singh v. Baljeet

Kaur") pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Hanumangarh to the court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Sriganganagar.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submits that the

marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent

in 2015 as per Hindu rites. It is pleaded that the petitioner wife

has lodged F.I.R. at Mahila Thana, Ganganagar against

(2 of 5) [CTA-149/2021]

respondent-husband and his family members for offences under

Section 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code. It is further pleaded

that the petitioner-wife has filed an application under Section 12

of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sriganaganagar against respondent-husband

and his family members claiming maintenance from the

respondent-husband. The petitioner is residing at her parental

home in Sriganganagar and she is saddled with the responsibility

of taking care of her old aged parents. She will be put under great

degree of hardship in defending the case being Civil Misc. Case

No.119/2021 ("Jagdeep Singh v. Baljeet Kaur") pending in the

Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh. She has

prayed that the case pending before Court of learned Judge,

Family Court, Hanumangarh may be transferred the court of

learned Judge, Family Court, Sriganganagar.

On 24.11.2021, notice of this transfer petition was issued to

the respondent and the proceedings of the case No. 119/2021

pending before the court below were stayed.

Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband opposed the

prayer of transfer of restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by

the respondent-husband being Civil Misc. Case No. 119/2021

("Jagdeep Singh v. Baljeet Kaur") pending in the Court of learned

Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh. It is submitted that the

distance between Hanumangarh and Sriganganagar is only 60

Kms and therefore the petitioner-wife who is a teacher employed

in a govt. school, will not face any difficulty in defending the case

before the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh. He submitted that

the respondent-husband is unemployed and therefore, if the

(3 of 5) [CTA-149/2021]

petition is allowed, he will face mental agony and financial

hardship. The counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered

by this Court in the case of Indra Purohit v. Aditya Sharma

2022 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 783.

From the record it is clear that the criminal proceedings as

well as the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence

Act are pending in Sriganganagar.

This Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Ors., reported in (2001)

10 SCC 41; Sarkar (Shome) Vs. Pardip Sarkar [Transfer

Petition (Civil) No.622/2007 decided by Supreme Court on

10.11.2008] Manju Varma Vs.State of U.P. and Ors. [Civil

Appeal No. 8290 of 2002 decided by the Supreme Court on

17.11.2004] and Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi Vs. Dharmendra

Kumar Gupta, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 353 has held that

Courts are required to give more weight and consideration to the

convenience of the female litigants and transfer legal proceedings

from one court to another should ordinarily be allowed. Taking into

consideration their convenience, the Court should desist from

putting female litigants under undue hardship.

Section 24 CPC reads as under:

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal:

(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

(4 of 5) [CTA-149/2021]

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it; and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding may, subject to any special directions in the case of any order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn.

(3) For the purposes of this section,-

(a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court;

(b) "proceeding" includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. (4) the Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes

(5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it."

It is noticed that Section 24 of C.P.C. does not even require

issuance of notice to the other side and this Court, on its own

motion or on being satisfied at any stage, can pass appropriate

orders for transfer of the concerned case. Similar view has been

taken by this Court in Bhanu Kumari Vs. Jitendra Singh &

Ors., reported in 2007(2) RLW (Raj.) 1077.

In view of discussion made herein above, the transfer

petition filed by the petitioner-wife is allowed. The Civil Misc. Case

No. 119/2021 ("Jagdeep Singh v. Baljeet Kaur") pending before

the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Hanumangarh is ordered

(5 of 5) [CTA-149/2021]

to be transferred to the court of learned Judge, Family Court,