The convenience of the wife and the economic soundness of both parties are crucial factors in deciding the transfer of matrimonial disputes, as emphasized by relevant judgments.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family Court, Palwal to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Gurdaspur.

2. Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has argued that inadvertently in para 10 in the grounds of the petition, the place is incorrectly mentioned as 'Faridkot' whereas it should be 'Palwal' in 'point F'.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also got registered one FIR No.18 dated 23.01.2020 at Gurdaspur.

4. It is further argued that the petitioner is residing at Gurdaspur where the marriage has taken place along with the minor child aged about 04 years and the respondent/husband has now filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that on account of a petition filed by the respondent/husband, the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case as there is a distance of about 595 Kms from Gurdaspur to Palwal.

6. Counsel for the petitioner 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 has 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.'

7. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment 'N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,' 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed 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.'

8. 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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the 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.

9. Reply by way of affidavit of the respondent/husband is taken on record, in which the only objection taken is that the father of the respondent has made some declaration in the newspaper disowning his son i.e. the respondent as well as the petitioner.

10. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same has no bearing on the present transfer application.

11