Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Kaur vs Rupinder Singh on 14 September, 2023
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:121186
TA-937-2023 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:121186
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
271
TA-937-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.09.2023
Amandeep Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Rupinder Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Family Court, Ambala to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Patiala.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a complaint under the provisions of the DV Act and has also got registered FIR No. 30 dated 11.04.2023 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 of the IPC at Patiala, which are pending. It is further submitted that the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Ambala in order to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 60 Kms between the aforesaid two places.
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2023 05:32:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:121186 TA-937-2023 (O&M) -2- Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:121186 Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, wherein 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
2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2023 05:32:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:121186 TA-937-2023 (O&M) -3- Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:121186 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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-husband is presently residing in USA. Even as per office report, notice could not be served as the respondent is residing abroad.
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 family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, 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.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-
(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Ambala will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Patiala.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2023 05:32:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:121186 TA-937-2023 (O&M) -4- Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:121186
(ii) The District Judge, Patiala will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Ambala is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Patiala.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Patiala within a period of 01 month from today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in a calendar month.
14.09.2023 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:121186
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-09-2023 05:32:12 :::