Ritu Rani v. Surinder Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH TA No.412 of 2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.01.2023 Ritu Rani

...Petitioner

v Surinder Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent, despite service.

*** NIDHI GUPTA, J.(ORAL) 1.

Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner wife is for transfer of the petition bearing No.HMA-9 of 2021 filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled "Salinder Singh @ Surinder Singh vs. Ritu Rani" pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Tohana, District Fatehabad to a court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that: i) that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13.03.2013 according to Hindu rites and rituals. ii) that two children were born out of the wedlock. However, out of them, one was died.

iii) that the petitioner along with her minor child is living with her parents at Patiala since 13.04.2018. iv) that the petitioner has no source of income. v) that the distance between her place of residence and place of proceedings is 155 kms. (one side).

vi) that the petitioner has also filed the following cases at Patiala:- a) Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

b) Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. 3.

Though notice has been served upon the respondent but no one appears on his behalf.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha," 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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."

6. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgmentsin "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."

7. Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, 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.

8.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:- a) The petition bearing No.HMA-9 of 2021 filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled "Salinder Singh @ Surinder Singh vs. Ritu Rani" pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Tohana, District Fatehabad is transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala.

b) The ld. District Judge, Fatehabad is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Patiala.

c) The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala on 16.02.2023.

d) The District Judge, Patiala will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 9.

The concerned Court at Patiala 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. 10.

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

17.01.2023 (Nidhi Gupta) ashok Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No