Gauhati High Court
Sardarni Navjot Kaur Sidhu vs Sardar Harpreet Singh Anand on 18 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010110582025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./28/2025
SARDARNI NAVJOT KAUR SIDHU
W/O SARDAR HARPREET SINGH ANAND
D/O LATE DIDAR SINGH SIDHU
R/O 270, BIMLA BORA ROAD, NEAR FIRE STATION, FAUZDARI PATTY, P.O.
AND P.S. NAGAON,
DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM,
PIN-782001, MOBILE NO. 9319673837.
VERSUS
SARDAR HARPREET SINGH ANAND
S/O SARDAR SURJIT SINGH ANAND
R/O FLAT NO.01,AMBIKA ESTATE BIJULI MILL ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, P.O.
ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-
781007
PH. 9435042324
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H AGARWAL, MR J SINGH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. DITUL DAS, MR. A K SINGH,MR. D S SINGH
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 18.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. J.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Sardarni Navjot Kaur Page No.# 2/6 Sidhu and Mr. D.S.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Sardar Harpreet Singh Anand.
2. By filing this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the F.C. (Civil) Case No.1565/2024 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati, Kamrup (M) to the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 11.06.2021 and after their marriage, both of them started living together as husband and wife at the house of the respondent. Thereafter, their marital life was struck by a chord of disharmony, and the petitioner went to her parental home. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been physically and mentally tortured at her matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income and is solely dependent on her old mother who herself is facing serious health issues.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner feels threatened to attend the proceedings before the Family court at Guwahati as she is unable to bear expenses in travelling from her current residence at Nagaon and it is not safe for her to undertake the journey alone. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is financially sound and has sufficient income having movable and immovable properties. It is also submitted that transfer of the matrimonial suit would not, in any way, prejudice the respondent since the respondent has the means and resources to cover such distance for litigation to travel to Nagaon from Guwahati.
Page No.# 3/6
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, prays that this is a fit case to transfer the F.C.(Civil) Case No. 1565/2024 pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati to the court of the District Judge at Nagaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C.V. Aishwarya -vs- A.S.Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, wherein in paragraph -9, it has been observed as below:
"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."
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that after their marriage, the petitioner always wanted to live a lavish, extravagant and luxurious lifestyle. It is also submitted that the petitioner is very impulsive and short tempered and she has levelled baseless allegations against the family members of the respondent. The petitioner is a Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) from Galgotias University and can earn her livelihood. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for transferring the proceeding from Guwahati to Nagaon may not be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das -vs- Srijit Das reported Page No.# 4/6 in MANU/SC/2855/2005, wherein it has been observed that:
"5.This transfer petitioner has been filed by the wife on the ground that the Petitioner has a small child of six years. She has further claimed that she has no source of income and it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Delhi. She has further claimed that she is not keeping good health.
6. In of this Petition, large number of authorities have been cited, namely Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri reported in (2002) 10 SCC 136, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in (2002) 10 SCC 480, Ram Gulam Pandit and Anr. v. Umesh J.Prasad reported in (2002) 10 SCC 551 and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh reported in MANU/SC/1515/2001: (2003) 11 SCC 26. These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as precedent.
7. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing leniency to ladies, But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this Court is being misused by the women.
8. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are grandparents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay all expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every visit when the Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi, Thus, the ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met."
7. I have considered the submissions of the parties at the Bar with Page No.# 5/6 circumspection.
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is taking care of her old and ailing mother who is suffering from a heart condition. I have scrutinized the Annexure-1 series which are the medical documents. It is also submitted that the petitioner has to take care of her mother and if she travels upto Guwahati, her mother may succumb. A close scrutiny of the medical documents reveal that ECG report is normal. The petitioner's mother is 57 years old and she has been provided treatment in Apollo Clinic at Dispur, Guwahati. Dr. Mayank Agarwal who has provided treatment to the petitioner's mother is a Cardiologist at Apollo Clinic at Guwahati.
9. It is also submitted that the petitioner has received her notice in Nagaon which belies the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is residing in Guwahati and she has falsely submitted that she resides alone with her mother.
10. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not the only daughter. Her brothers can very well take care of her mother. At present the petitioner is residing in her parental home and she is from an affluent family running a wine shop at Nagaon. The respondent is willing to bear the travel expenses of the petitioner along with an attendant and also expenses for accommodation during the hearing of this case.
11. The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V.Aiwshwarya (supra) does not appear to be applicable to this case. The petitioner is a Physiotherapist and appears to be a well educated lady.
12. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 6/6 Anindita Das (supra), this petition stands rejected under the condition that the respondent who is willing to pay for the travel expenses and accommodation of the petitioner along with an attendant during court hearing shall bear the travel expense and accommodation when the petitioner is required to attend court hearing and the court may also dispose of the F.C.(Civil) Case No, 1565/2024 through video conferencing.
13. In terms of the above observations, this transfer petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant