Jagroop Kaur v. Ranjit Singh

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-641-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2022 Jagroop Kaur ....Petitioner Vs.

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

Present:

Mr. Vipan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

******* ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of CM No.263 of 2021 in CM No.188 of 2020 filed by the respondent-husband, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 120 kms between Jalandhar and Gurdaspur. It is further submitted that in terms of decree of divorce dated 04.12.2018, both the parties have re-married.

-2Learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner is having two 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 Jalandhar to Gurdaspur.

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 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 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 issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying

-3further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise 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) 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. CM No.263 of 2021 in CM No.188 of 2020 filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

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

However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this petition, if he intent to contest the same, provided that:- (a) The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in terms of a petition filed by the petitioner either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(b) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at Gurdaspur, on each and every date of hearing. (c) The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the petitioner to pursue the

-4case at Gurdaspur, in case the respondent opt to contest this petition.

Present petition is disposed of accordingly.

[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] JUDGE 13.07.2022 vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No