The principle that a party cannot take undue benefit of their own wrongs and that the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC requires compelling reasons.

Headnote:
Transfer Plea - Matrimonial Dispute - The court dismissed the transfer plea filed by the wife seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that the wife cannot take undue benefit of her own wrongs and that the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be inferred without compelling reasons.
Fact of the Case:

The wife filed a transfer plea seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming harassment if the husband attends the proceedings at a far-off place. The court noted the wife's previous complaint against the husband and her residing with her parents, and dismissed the transfer plea.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the wife's petition was nothing but a sweet revenge to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law, and emphasized that the wife cannot take undue benefit of her own wrongs. The court dismissed the transfer plea in limine.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife's transfer plea seeking transfer of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that the wife cannot take undue benefit of her own wrongs and that the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be inferred without compelling reasons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the transfer plea in limine, finding no merits in the wife's petition.

ORDER

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral). - The applicant Rinky Rani wife after her matrimonial dispute with the husband Daljit Kumar had led the parties to these multifarious claims and counter claims against each other. It is the own case of the wife that she is a resident of Nabha in District Patiala and had moved a complaint against husband before the police at Patiala and after the parties resolved their dispute had again fallen apart and which led to instituting of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. HMA 1333 of 2021 titled as Daljit Kumar Vs. Rinky Rani filed by the husband which is pending before the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar.

2. No doubt, the couple has two daughters aged 12 years and 8 years and it is also there that wife is residing with her parents and thus not much of a cause for the wife unable to look after the children.

3. In this modern era, there is a clamour for equity of sexes and merely because the applicant is a wife, the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting towards fairer sex. What one could decipher that the husband is a dealer while the wife is a house wife and by making the husband attend the proceedings at a far off place by virtue of this transfer plea has been put forth would further be a cause of harassment to the husband who is already seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs and rather the present petition is nothing but a sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law and more so the invocation of a jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be rightly inferred unless and until there are bonafide compelling reasons for the Court to come to the aid of the applicant.

4. There being no merits, the petition stands dismissed in limine.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document