Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 730 (PNJ)

Kiran Bala v. Ram Phal

2005-07-12

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short "the Act"), filed by the respondent against the petitioner titled as "Ram Phal V/s. Kiran Bala" which is pending in the Court of Shri R.C. Gupta, District Judge, Karnal, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place without the permission of petitioners family. Nor even any member of petitioners family was present at the time of marriage. The petitioner was hardly 15-1/2 years of age at the time of her marriage. The father of the petitioner got a case registered under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 19 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 against those who had conducted the marriage and the said case is pending trial at Ambala. The petitioner further alleges that another criminal case under Sections 363/365/ 366-A/376/120-B of the Indian Penal Code is also pending trial against the respondent and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. The respondent as a counter blast to the above proceedings has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act against the petitioner in the Court of District Judge, Karnal. The petitioner seeks transfer of the said petition to Ambala on the grounds that she is a young girl and belongs to a poor family and she has no source of income. She is unable to travel from Ambala to Karnal to attend the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relying upon a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in Rachna Kanodia V/s. Anuk Kanodia, 2002(1) M.L.J. 86 (S.C.); Neelam Kanwar V/s. Davinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (S.C.); Archna Singh V/s. Alok Partap Singh, 2002(2) M.L.J. 568 and Savitri V/s. Hari Chand, contended that in these cases the Supreme Court ordered transfer of matrimonial proceedings at or near the place where the wife was residing and while doing so, due consideration was given to the convenience of the wife. The counsel, thus, submitted that in view of the facts stated in the petition and the observations of the Supreme Court in the above referred cases, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. The counsel, thus, submitted that in view of the facts stated in the petition and the observations of the Supreme Court in the above referred cases, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand opposed the prayer made in the petition. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, I have also gone through the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner. In all these decisions all that has been observed in a single tone is that while considering the question of transfer of matrimonial proceedings, regard must be had to the convenience of the wife. In the said cases, the proceedings which were pending at very distant place and even in the Courts of a different State have been ordered to be transferred to or near the place where the wife was residing. Mere incorporation of observations made by the Supreme Court made in all of the aforesaid decisions would unnecessarily burden this order. However, the observations of the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwars case (supra) are being noticed as under: "We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown." Having regard to the observations of the Apex Court in the above cases and in the facts of this case which have neither been denied or controverted by the respondent, the petition deserves to be accepted. 5 In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 9 of the Act titled as "Ram Phal V/s. Kiran Bala" is withdrawn from the file of District Judge, Karnal and is transferred to the file of District Judge, Ambala. It shall be open to the District Judge, Ambala to either take the transferred petition on his own Board or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Ambala. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Ambala on 17.8.2005 who shall pass appropriate orders in the matter.