Balvir Kaur v. Pushvinder Pal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:05.09.2022 Balvir Kaur .....Petitioner

Versus

Pushvinder Pal .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present:- Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

**** ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN , J.

(ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the Family Court, District Bathinda to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Moga. Vide order dated 15.03.2022, the following order was passed:- "The applicant is seeking transfer of a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent, which is pending in the Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Moga.

Learned counsel inter alia contends that after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home by the

-2respondent, she alongwith two minor children had been residing with her parents at Moga and living at their mercy. It would therefore be very difficult for her to travel alone from Moga to Bathinda, which is almost 100 kms away, on each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the case at Bathinda is still at the initial stage. It has also been submitted that no other case is pending between the parties.

Notice of motion for 24.05.2022.

Meanwhile, Court below shall adjourn the case beyond the date fixed by this Court."

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda.

Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on account of a petition filed by the respondent/husband, the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case as there is a distance of about 100 Kms. from Ferozepur to Jalandhar. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the custody of two minor child is also with the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner 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 has 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

-3proceedings 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." Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment "N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha," 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed 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.

-4of decisions."

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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the 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.

Notice issued to the respondent has been received back served but none has appeared on his behalf.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner/wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deem it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petition filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Family Court, Bathinda will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Moga.

2. The District Judge, Moga, will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. The Family Court, Bathinda is directed to transfer all the

-5record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Moga.

4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, Moga, within a period of 01 month from today.

5. The Family Court, Moga will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties.

6. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.

Disposed of.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 05.09.2022 geeta Whether reasoned/speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No