Amrit v. Anish Bohtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.07.2022 Amrit ....Petitioner

Versus

Anish Bohtra ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Joy Joseph, Advocate for the respondent.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, pending in the Family Court, Panchkula to the competent Court of jurisdiction at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed one complaint before the SSP, Mohali.

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula.

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 20 Kms from S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali to Panchkula.

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. 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) 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 32 of the Divorce Act, pending before the Family Court, Panchkula will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

2. The District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3. The Family Court, Panchkula is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

4. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, within a period of 01 month from today.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for recovery of the maintenance by filing an appropriate application before the trial Court, failing which the evidence of the respondent/husband will be struck-off.

Disposed of.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 21.07.2022 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No