Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: 10.9.2 vs Sandeep Dhingra on 10 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
T.A. No. 302 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) Transfer Application No. 302 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.9.2010.
Ashu Dhingra ....Applicant
Versus
Sandeep Dhingra
...Respondent
2) Transfer Application No. 303 of 2010 (O&M)
Ashu Dhingra ....Applicant
Versus
Sandeep Dhingra
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant.
None for the respondent.
RAJESH BINDAL J
This order of mine shall dispose of two transfer applications bearing Nos. 302 and 303 of 2010 as both the petitions have been filed by wife against the husband seeking transfer of cases pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Mohali and Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali, respectively i.e. One under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') titled as Sandeep Dhingra Vs. Ashu Dhingra and another under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short 'the 1890 Act) titled as Sandeep Dhingra Vs. Ashu Dhingra filed by the respondent-husband to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Amritsar.
Service of respondent is complete. However, at the time of hearing, no one had appeared for him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites at Chandigarh on 5.5.2007. One male child was born out of the wedlock. The applicant was turned out of matrimonial home. As all efforts for reconciliation thereafter remained futile, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 T.A. No. 302 of 2010 2 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short 'the DV Act') at Amritsar. As a counter blast to the aforesaid cases filed by the applicant, the respondent filed petitions under Section 9 of the Act and for custody of child at Mohali. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of both the petitions filed by the respondent-husband at Mohali, being a poor lady, who is living at Amritsar with minor child aged 2 ½ years at the mercy of her parents with no source of income. No one is there in the family to accompany her to attend hearings of the case at Mohali. The applicant is not even being paid any maintenance. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Distance between Amritsar to Mohali is about 225 kilometers. Considering the aforesaid facts, both the petitions filed by the husband at Mohali be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Amritsar.
No one had appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing to controvert the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The issue regarding transfer of case from one Court to another has been discussed by Courts in numerous judgments. In Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008 (3) SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters to be considered for the purpose, while opining that the same cannot be treated as exhaustive but illustrative in nature. The relevant Para-14 thereof is extracted hereunder:
"Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit;T.A. No. 302 of 2010 3
issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order."
The issue regarding transfer of matrimonial proceedings almost in similar circumstances came up for consideration before this Court as well in a number of cases earlier. It has been the consistent view that primarily the convenience of the wife is to be given weightage for ordering transfer of proceedings at or near the place where she is residing.
In Veena alias Arti v. Pawan Kumar, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 558 (P&H) : 1998 (1) M.L.J. 316, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband at Sultanpur Lodhi were ordered to be transferred to Amritsar by this Court. In Smt. Sonia v. Rajnish Kumar Arora, 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 361 (P&H) :
1998 (1) M.L.J. 37, this Court ordered transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Act from Ludhiana to Amritsar. On yet another occasion in Suman v. Gopal, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 26, having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, A.I.R. 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001 (1) M.L.J. 509 (S.C.), this Court ordered the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Gurgaon to Faridabad.
The relevant observations from Neelam Kanwar's case (supra) are extracted as under:-
"We are midful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that T.A. No. 302 of 2010 4 there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown."
In Milli vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 422, a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, was ordered to be transferred from Jagadhari to Amritsar on an application filed by the wife.
As is evident from the cases referred to above, the principle of law with regard to transfer of cases especially regarding matrimonial disputes is quite settled, where consistent opinion is that it is always the convenience of wife which has to be given due weightage for ordering the transfer of proceedings at or near the place where the wife is residing.
In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing at Amritsar. Two cases filed by her, which are prior in time, are also pending at Amritsar. The petition under Section 9 of the Act and custody of child were subsequently filed by the husband at Mohali. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife living with minor child aged 2 ½ years at the mercy of her parents, to attend hearing of both the petitions at Amritsar. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the wife which is the paramount consideration, in my opinion, the petitions under Section 9 of the Act titled as Sandeep Dhingra Vs. Ashu Dhingra and another under the1890 Act titled as Sandeep Dhingra Vs. Ashu Dhingra, both filed by the respondent-husband deserves to be transferred to the Family Court at Amritsar.
Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Family Court at Amritsar on 1.10.2010 for further proceedings.
As the respondent remained unrepresented before this Court, the factum regarding the transfer of both the petitions from Mohali to Amritsar shall be brought to the notice of the respondent or his counsel by the Court concerned at Mohali on the next date of hearing.
The applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 10.9.2010. JUDGE Reema