Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 596 (PNJ)

Meenakshi Rani v. Honey Nagar

2020-02-14

ARUN MONGA

body2020
JUDGMENT Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed by the applicant-wife for transfer of a civil suit for recovery filed by the respondent-husband, bearing no. CS 2421/2007 titled as "Honey Nagar v. Meenakshi Rani" pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one petition under Section 13(l)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted at the instance of applicant, is already pending before the Court at Bathinda. Criminal proceedings vide FIR No.57 dated 19.12.2017 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are also pending adjudication at Bathinda. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is residing at Bathinda with her widowed mother. She has no source of income. It is very difficult for her to travel from Bathinda to Ambala on each and every date of hearing. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. The cases pending between the parties are aftermath of matrimonial discord. Keeping in view the averments contained in the application and the conceded position that one petition under Section 13(l)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was filed by the respondent and transferred by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018 from Ambala to Bathinda and criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and Section 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are already pending in the Court at Bathinda, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if all the cases are tried and decided at one place. 6. Reference may also be had to the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in cases titled as "Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar San jay and another", AIR 2002 SC 396 and Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi" 2005 (12) SCC 237 , wherein in matrimonial matters, convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of husband. 7. Even otherwise, the ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India also envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman. 7. Even otherwise, the ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India also envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman. In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children. 8. It was perhaps in this spirit that an amendment was inserted by Act 50 of 2003 with effect from 23.12.2003 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whereby, in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition. In fact the very statement of objects and reasons of the Bill whereby Clause (iii a) was inserted in Section 19 (i) of HMA, by way of marriage laws (Amendment Act 2003) states as below : "The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provide that a petition for relief under the provisions of these Acts shall be presented to the District Court within the limits of whose original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resided or the parties to the marriage last resided together or the petitioner was residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent was at the time residing outside the territories to which these Acts extended or had not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. However, these provisions are not considered adequate or fair as far the women are concerned. Under the existing provisions, a petition cannot be filed by the aggrieved wife to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction she may be residing. In view thereof, the Government has decided to amend the provisions of these Acts so that the wife can also file petition in the District Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction she may be residing." 9. After the aforesaid amendment, husband can only institute proceedings either where marriage was solemnized or where the wife is residing or where the parties last resided together. After the aforesaid amendment, husband can only institute proceedings either where marriage was solemnized or where the wife is residing or where the parties last resided together. Only in a case where wife is residing outside India, the husband can institute proceedings where he is residing. Whereas, wife can file a petition on the additional ground of her being resident within the local limits of the competent Court. The said right has been exclusively conferred on a wife so as to keep her convenience in mind in the matrimonial matters. 10 . In the premise, present application is allowed. The suit in question pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala is ordered to be withdrawn from that Court and is transferred to the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, for its disposal in accordance with law by the Court concerned.