Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Applicant, by way of instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), seeks transfer of the petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (‘the Act’ for short) titled as Dr. Apurva Nalwa Vs. Dr. Navtej Singh Nalwa, from Hisar to Bathinda.

2. Notice of motion was issued.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. It has gone undisputed before this Court that applicant-wife is living with her parents at Amritsar. However, she is seeking transfer of her petition for custody of the minor child from Hisar to Bathinda, so that it may not be unduly harsh to the respondent-husband, because Bathinda would fall midway between Hisar and Amritsar. Further, this Court has already passed order dated 17.5.2016 in TA Nos. 272 and 306 of 2015, transferring two litigations between these very parties from Hisar to Bathinda.

5. After giving anxious consideration to the contentions raised and careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that instant one has been found to be a fit case for ordering the transfer of petition under Section 25 of the Act from Hisar to Bathinda. It is so said because all the abovesaid undisputed facts clearly go in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-husband.

6. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever the Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances of either of the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at by the Courts, while deciding a transfer application.

7. The view taken by this Court also finds support from the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as different High Courts, including this Court: -

1. Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and another Vs. Miss Rani Jethmalani, AIR 1979 (SC) 468.

2. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990 (1) SCC 4.

3. Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2000 (10) SCC 589.

4. Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 (SC) 396.

5. Mangla Patil Kale Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Kale, 2003 (10) SCC 280.

6. Fatema Vs. Jafri Syed Husain @ Syed Parvez Jafferi, AIR 2009 (SC) 1773.

7. Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, AIR 2009 (SC) 1374.

8. Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1526 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1333.

9. Nisha Vs. Dharmenda Pratap Singh Rathore, 2015 (3) All. LJ 168.

10. M.V. Rekha Vs. Sathya, 2011 (2) HLR 34.

11. Sneha Vs. Vinayak, 2013 ILR (Karnataka) 165.

12. Rimpal Vs. Balinder Kumar, 2010 (7) RCR (Civil) 286.

13. Anju Vs. Sanjay, 2011 (6) RCR (Civil) 112.

14. Komal Devi @ Komal Kumari @ Komal Rani Vs. Harbhajan Singh, 2013(2) Marriage L.J. 691 (P&H) : 2013(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3719 : 2012 (8) RCR (Civil) 84.

8. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inDr. Subramaniam Swamy (supra),, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under: -

“The question of expediency would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It is true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere convenience of the parties or any one of them may not b