The convenience of the wife and the importance of considering female litigants' convenience in transfer applications are crucial factors in deciding the transfer of matrimonial disputes.

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, pending before the Family Court, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Panchkula. While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by this Court on 03.02.2022: -

'Applicant-wife has filed the present transfer application for seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, at the instance of respondent-husband, which is presently pending in the Family Court, Jagadhari, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is presently residing at Jagadhari with her parents along with her one year old daughter and it is difficult for her to pursue the divorce petition filed at the instance of her husband. The distance between Jagadhari to Panchkula is about 110 kms. Moreover, one FIR bearing No.164 dated 18.09.2021 against the respondent and his family members, and even petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are already pending at Panchkula. Moreover, the respondent is not paying any maintenance.'

2. 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.'

3. Learned counsel has further relied upon N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: -

?'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.

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.'

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

5. 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.

6. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the judgments in Sumita S