The convenience of the wife, family conditions, and precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar cases are crucial factors in deciding the transfer of matrimonial disputes/cases at the instance of the wife.

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 Sunny Vinayak vs. Meenu Vinayak, pending before the Family Court, Jagadhri to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

2. While issuing notice of motion on 02.12.2021, the following order was passed:

'Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in order to attend the proceedings initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Jagadhri the petitioner would need to travel a distance of about 110 kilometres (one way) and, hence, she would not be able to properly defend her case. It is further contended that two other cases initiated by the petitioner being MNT125/141/2021 titled as 'Meenu and Etc. vs. Sunny Vinayak' under Section 125 CrPC and a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Act bearing No.COMA 103 of 2021 titled as 'Meenu vs. Sunny Vinayak' are already pending at Kaithal.

Notice of motion returnable 07.01.2022.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of the aforesaid cases, filed by the petitioner-wife, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Jagadhri 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 110 kms between the aforesaid two places.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is having two minor children, who are living in her care and custody, therefore, it is very difficult for her to defend the said case at Kaithal.

5. 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.'

6. As per office report, the respondent is served, however, there is no representation on his behalf.

7. 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.

8. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, 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) and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-

(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Jagadhri will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kaithal.

(ii) The District Judge, Kaithal will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

(iii) The Family Court at Jagadhri is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Kaithal.

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Kaithal within a period of 01 month from today.

9. However, libe