Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1821 (PNJ)

Bhavneet Kaur v. Gurpreet Singh

2022-09-29

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

body2022
JUDGMENT Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral) - While issuing notice of motion on 14.03.2022, the following order was passed: 'The applicant is seeking transfer of a petition titled as 'Gurpreet Singh Vs. Bhavneet Kaur' filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kharar, District SAS Nagar. Learned counsel inter alia contends that after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home by the respondent, she (along with her one minor child) had been residing with her parents at SAS Nagar and living at their mercy. It would, therefore, be very difficult for her to travel alone from SAS Nagar to Amritsar which is almost 180 kms. away, on each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the case at Amritsar is at the initial stage. It has also been submitted that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is already pending between the parties at District Courts at SAS Nagar, which was instituted prior in time. Notice of motion for 12.07.2022.' 2. 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.' 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, wherein 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. 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.' 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has opposed the prayer of the petitioner-wife. 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. 5. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, considering the fact that if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh's case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:- (i) The petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Baba Bakala Sahib, Amritsar will be transferred Waseem Ansari to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kharar, SAS Nagar. (ii) The District Judge, SAS Nagar will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction. (iii) The Family Court at Baba Bakala Sahib, Amritsar is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, SAS Nagar. (iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Kharar, SAS Nagar within a period of 01 month from today. (v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in a calendar month.