Urmila v. Sushil Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.07.2022 Urmila ....Petitioner

Versus

Sushil Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Ms. Rinky Gupta, 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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family Court, Sirsa Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition/complaint under the Domestic Violence Act at Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa. 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 110 Kms from Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad to Sirsa

Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa.

Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is having 02 minor children, who are living in her care and custody and she is facing difficulty to defend the case as she has to travel from Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad to Sirsa Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa.

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."

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. As per the office report, the respondent has been served, however, there is no representation 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) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi'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 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Sirsa Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad.

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

3. The Family Court, Sirsa Camp at Dabwali, District Sirsa 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, Camp Court Tohana, District Fatehabad, within a period of 01 month from today.

Disposed of.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 25.07.2022 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No