Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manju vs Sandeep on 23 July, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
T.A. No. 116 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Transfer Application No. 116 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.7.2010.
Manju ....Applicant
Versus
Sandeep
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- None for the applicant.
Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJESH BINDAL J Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Sandeep Vs. Smt. Manju filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent-husband from the Court of District Judge, Sonepat to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Palwal.
Briefly the pleaded facts of the case are that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites at Palwal on 23.5.2005. No child was born out of the wedlock. The applicant was turned out of matrimonial home after giving severe beatings. As all efforts for reconciliation thereafter remained futile, the applicant got registered a case under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC at Palwal and filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As a counter blast to the aforesaid application filed by the applicant, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, at Sonepat. The distance between Palwal to Sonepat is 125 kilometers. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent-husband at Sonepat, being a poor lady, who is living 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 Sonepat. The applicant is not even being paid any maintenance. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the T.A. No. 116 of 2010 2 petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband at Sonepat be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Palwal.
At the time of hearing no one has appeared for applicant. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent made all efforts to reconcile the matter but all in vain. The applicant got false case registered against the respondent and his family members. The respondent is ready and willing to keep the applicant with him.
Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 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; 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 T.A. No. 116 of 2010 3 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 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 T.A. No. 116 of 2010 4 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 Palwal. Two cases filed by the applicant, which are prior in time, were pending at Palwal, when the petition under Section 9 of the Act was subsequently filed by the husband at Sonepat. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife living at the mercy of her parents, to attend hearing of the petition under Section 9 of the Act at Sonepat. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the wife, which is the paramount consideration, in my opinion, the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent which is pending before the Court at Sonepat titled as Sandeep Vs. Smt. Manju, deserves to be transferred to the Civil Juge (Senior Division) Palwal. Ordered accordingly.
Parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal on August 21, 2010 for further proceedings. The Civil Judge Senior Division), Palwal may either keep the same with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court.
As learned counsel for the applicant was not available at the time of hearing, the factum regarding the transfer of the petition from Sonepat to Palwal shall be intimated to the applicant by the Court concerned at Sonepat on the next date of hearing.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(RAJESH BINDAL) 23.7.2010. JUDGE Reema