SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Komal - Appellant
Versus
Manu Dhand - Respondent
TA No. 1154 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-09-2022

Advocates:
None., for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent

In transfer petitions of matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife should be given more weightage, and the economic and social conditions of the parties should be considered.

Headnote:

Transfer of Case - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13 - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay (2002 SC 396), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005(12) SCC 237), N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 Live Law (SC) 627)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought transfer of a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court, Ludhiana to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kapurthala, citing difficulties in prosecuting the case due to matrimonial discord and the distance between the two locations.

Finding of the Court:

The Court, considering the convenience of the female litigant and the principles established in relevant judgments, allowed the transfer petition with certain conditions, including the transfer of all case records to the District Judge, Kapurthala, and directing the parties to appear before the trial Court, Kapurthala, within a month.

Issues: Transfer of matrimonial dispute, convenience of the wife, economic and social conditions of the parties, and the distance between the locations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of considering the convenience of the wife in transfer petitions, taking into account the family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health, and the earning capacity of the husband. The Court also highlighted the principle that in matrimonial matters, the wife's convenience should be given more weightage while considering transfer.

Final Decision: The transfer petition was allowed, subject to certain conditions, and the respondent was granted liberty to contest the petition upon fulfilling specified requirements.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral) - In view of the Resolution of the Bar, the Lawyers are abstaining from work.

2. Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Family Court, Ludhiana to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Kapurthala. It is submitted in the petition that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Kapurthala.

3. It is also stated in the petition that the respondent/husband has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as a counter-blast, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana. It is further stated 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 80 Kms from Kapurthala to Ludhiana.

4. Lastly, it is stated that the petitioner is having a minor child, who is living in her care and custody and she is facing difficulty to defend the case as she has to travel from Kapurthala to Ludhiana.

5. Reliance can be placed 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.'

6. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,' 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, it has been 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.'

    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 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.

    8. After going through the paperbook, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner/wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh's case (sup

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top