The convenience of the wife is a significant consideration in the transfer of matrimonial disputes, along with economic and social factors. Interdependent cases should be tried together to avoid multiplicity and conflict of decisions.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as Rohit Verma vs. Diksha, pending before the Family Court, Jalandhar to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kurukshetra.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act; a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and has also got registered an FIR under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 of the IPC complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC at Kurukshetra, which are pending. It is further submitted that as a counter- blast to the aforesaid case, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Jalandhar in order to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 225 Kms between the aforesaid two places.

3. It is further submitted that though in petition, it is mentioned that there is one minor child with the petitioner/wife, however, this is only a bona fide typographical error as there is no issue out of this wedlock.

4. 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.'

5. 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. 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.'

6. 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.

7. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying fu