Convenience of a custodial parent is a compelling reason for transferring divorce proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments in related cases.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Transfer of divorce petition - Petitioner's convenience considered for transfer of divorce proceedings to the District where she resides with children - Ensures avoidance of conflicting findings in related matters. (Paras 5, 8)

(B) Jurisdiction - Court may exercise discretion in transferring petitions based on the welfare and convenience of parties involved. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought transfer of divorce proceedings to her local family court for convenience due to her living with two minor daughters, while the respondent objected based on his residence and the nature of personal appearances needed in such matters.

Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to transfer proceedings to align with existing related cases and to avoid conflicting outcomes.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the divorce petition should be transferred for the sake of convenience and to prevent conflicting judicial decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that convenience, particularly for a custodial parent, is a valid reason for transferring a petition to jurisdiction closer to the party's residence.

Result: The transfer petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks transfer of divorce petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments presented for and against transfer. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court considers logistics and potential conflicts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court sets transfer process and procedural details. (Para 10 , 11)
5. transfer petition allowed with terms. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.

2. This is a transfer petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the matter bearing HMA No. 725/2020 titled Puneet Solanki v. Nidhi Solanki, which is pending before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi to the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi.

3. The Petitioner had got married to the Respondent on 4th February, 2013. Thereafter, they were blessed with two daughters. The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 9th October, 2019 against the Respondent and his parents, which is pending before the ld. CMM, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi. She has thereafter, also filed a petition under Section 12 5 of the Cr.P.C. before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, (North-West), Rohini Court, Delhi.

4. The Respondent/husband has, however, on 11th December, 2020, filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Sections 13 (1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, which is now pending before the ld. Principal Judge (New Delhi), Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi.

5. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has two minor daughters and it would be convenient for her if the matter before the ld. Principal Judge (New Delhi), Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi is also shifted to be heard before the ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, (North-West), Rohini Court, Delhi.

6. Ld. counsel for the Respondent submits that the Court ought not to always take a view in favour of the wife. He submits that the Respondent is a pilot who resides in Palam and the appropriate jurisdiction, as per his residence, is the Court of Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi. He further submits, that in any event, personal appearance of the parties is rarely required in such matters except at the time of giving evidence. He also submits that though the petition for divorce was filed by the Respondent almost four months ago, when the next date is fast approaching on 24th April, 2021, the present petition for transfer has been filed by the Petitioner. The same is thus, not bona fide.

7. The Court has heard ld. counsels for the parties and has perused the records. As per the memo of parties, the Petitioner-wife is living with her two daughters in her parental house in Sector 22, Rohini, Delhi. The Respondent is living in Nasirpur Village, Palam, South-West Delhi and he is a pilot.

8. The Court has considered the residences of both the parties, as also the fact that the Petitioner has two minor daughters, and at some point would be required to travel to Court of Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi. Further, in order to avoid any conflicting findings or contradictory conclusions arrived at by the ld. Family Courts, it is deemed appropriate to transfer the petition for divorce pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi to ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi to be heard and tried along with the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi.

9. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the contentions of the either of the parties.

10. Further, the present transfer petition shall not be used as a reason by the Petitioner to seek adjournment of the matter on 24th April, 2021. The ld. Principal Judge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document