The convenience of the wife is a paramount consideration in the transfer of matrimonial disputes, and the Court should prioritize the well-being and convenience of female litigants in such cases.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Sukhwinder Singh vs. Amanpreet Kaur” pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits :-

i) That the parties were married on 23.10.2020 according to Sikh rites and rituals.

ii) That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who is around 1 year of age and is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband since 18.5.2022 and living with her parents at their mercy at Hoshiarpur.

iv) That the petitioner is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents and the respondent-husband is not paying anything to her towards maintenance.

v) The respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana.

vi) The proceedings arising out of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur.

vii) That the distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Hoshiarpur and the place of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, is about 80 kilometers one side.

viii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of petitioner who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings pending at Ludhiana.

3. It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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.”

5. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs 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. Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of l