Kirandeep Kaur v. Gurpreet Singh

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-463-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.08.2022 Kirandeep Kaur ....Petitioner Vs.

Gurpreet Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

******* ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Patti, District Tarn Taran to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed on 27.04.2021: - "Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is residing at Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur where, the applicant has already filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as a petition under Section

-212 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which petitions, the notice has already been issued to the respondent-husband and the present proceedings have been initiated by the respondent-husband to harass the applicantwife. Learned counsel for the applicant further argues that keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2000(10) SCC 589 as well as in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, 2001 (10) SCC 41, the suit/proceedings between the parties ordinarily should be tried at the place where the woman is residing unless and until there are special reasons not to do so, hence, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as amended upto date) be transferred from Tarn Taran to competent Court in Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur."

Learned counsel 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 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

-3another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."

Learned counsel has further relied upon N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - "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.

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

-4are 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." As per office report, notice issued to the respondent has not been received back served, however, in view of the interim order dated 27.04.2021, vide which the trial Court was directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed before this Court, it is a deemed service upon the respondent.

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

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 in 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:-

-51. The petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Patti, District Tarn Taran will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

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

3. The Family Court, Patti, District Tarn Taran is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Hoshiarpur.

4. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur within a period of 01 month from today.

Present petition is disposed of accordingly.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] JUDGE 08.08.2022 vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No