Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravita vs Rampal on 18 February, 2020
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
TA-728-2019 1
Sr. No.210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
TA-728-2019
Date of Decision: 18.02.2020
RAVITA
... Applicant
Versus
RAMPAL
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr.Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr.S.N.Pillania, Advocate
for the respondent.
ARUN MONGA, J.(ORAL)
1. Applicant-wife seeks transfer of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent- husband bearing HMA No.615 of 2019 titled as "Rampal v/s Ravita"
pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jind to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Sonepat.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that complaint under Section 12 of DV Act and criminal proceeding arising out of FIR under Section 323, 34, 498-A, 406, 506 IPC between the parties are already pending at Ganaur, Sonepat.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that petitioner is residing at Sonepat with her parents. One minor son born out of the wedlock is in the custody of applicant-wife. She has no source of income and it is very difficult for her to attend hearings at Jind which is approximately 100 kms from Sonepat.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2020 07:29:53 ::: TA-728-2019 2 gone through the record of the case.
5. The cases pending between the parties are aftermath of matrimonial discord. Keeping in view the contentions in the application and the conceded position that complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and criminal proceeding arising out of FIR under Section 323, 34, 498-A, 406, 506 IPC is already pending at Sonepat, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice, if all the cases are tried and decided at one place.
6. Reference may also be had to the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in cases titled as "Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another", AIR 2002 SC 396 and Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi" 2005 (12) SCC 237, wherein in matrimonial matters, convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of husband.
7. Even otherwise, the ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India also envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman. In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children.
8. It was perhaps in this spirit that an amendment was inserted by Act 50 of 2003 with effect from 23.12.2003 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby, in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2020 07:29:54 ::: TA-728-2019 3 residing on the date of presentation of the petition. In fact the very statement of objects and reasons of the Bill whereby Clause (iiia) was inserted in Section 19 (i) of HMA, by way of marriage laws (Amendment Act 2003) states as below :
"The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provide that a petition for relief under the provisions of these Acts shall be presented to the District Court within the limits of whose original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resided or the parties to the marriage last resided together or the petitioner was residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent was at the time residing outside the territories to which these Acts extended or had not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. However, these provisions are not considered adequate or fair as far the women are concerned. Under the existing provisions, a petition cannot be filed by the aggrieved wife to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction she may be residing. In view thereof, the Government has decided to amend the provisions of these Acts so that the wife can also file petition in the District Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction she may be residing."
9. After the aforesaid amendment, husband can only institute proceedings, either where marriage was solemnized or where the wife is residing or where the parties last resided together. Only in a case where wife is residing outside India, the husband can institute proceedings where he is residing. Whereas, wife can file a petition on the additional ground of her being 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2020 07:29:54 ::: TA-728-2019 4 resident within the local limits of the competent Court. The said right has been exclusively conferred on a wife so as to keep her convenience in mind in the matrimonial matters.
11. In the premise, present application is allowed. The petition in question pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jind is ordered to be withdrawn from that Court and is transferred to the District Judge, Sonepat for its disposal in accordance with law by the Court concerned.
(ARUN MONGA)
18.02.2020 JUDGE
Sonu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 01-03-2020 07:29:54 :::