Karamjeet Kaur @ Karamjit Kaur v. Chitwant Singh And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.08.2022 Karamjeet Kaur @ Karamjit Kaur ....Petitioner

Versus

Chitwant Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed under Sections 6, 7, 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, pending in the Family Court, Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fatehabad. Vide order dated 07.02.2022, the following order was passed:- "This petition has been filed by the wife seeking the transfer of the petition filed under Section 6, 7 and 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, bearing case No.GW/31/2021, titled as "Chitwant Singh Vs. Bohar Singh and another", pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mansa at Budhlada, District Mansa, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at District Court, Fatehabad, Haryana.

The petitioner claims that she got married to the respondent on 01.10.2006, and they have been blessed with one female child. She claims that presently, she is residing with her parents at Village Ahirman, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, Haryana, and the distance between Mansa and Fatehabad is 90 Kms. The petitioner further claims that she cannot properly defend the petition at

District Mansa, Punjab.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the appeal against the order dated 01.04.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012, is pending before the District Judge, Fatehabad. He further contends that it will be very difficult for the petitioner to travel on each date of hearing. Notice of motion for 02.03.2022."

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Budhlada under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act at Fatehabad.

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent/husband has filed the petition under Sections 6, 7, 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa. 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 90 Kms from Fatehabad to Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa.

Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody and she is facing difficulty to defend the case as she has to travel from Fatehabad to Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa. 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 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."

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. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise 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."

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. Counsel for the respondent has, however, not disputed the factual position but opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, 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 Sections 6, 7, 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, pending before the Family Court, Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fatehabad.

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

3. The Family Court, Camp Court Budhlada, District Mansa is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Fatehabad.

4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court,

Fatehabad, within a period of 01 month from today. Disposed of.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 16.08.2022 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No