In matrimonial transfer petitions, the court prioritizes the wife's convenience and considers her economic condition, social standing, and related ongoing litigation.

Judgment

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Present transfer application, under Section 24 CPC, has been filed by the petitioner - wife, for seeking transfer of the petition, bearing No. DMC-744 of 2022, filed by the respondent – husband, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as “Yogesh Kumar Vs. Pushpa”, presently pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Charkhi Dadri.

2. The present transfer petition has been filed, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on 29.05.2020, at Ward No.14, Nazdik Hanuman Mandir, Dadri, District Dadri according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies.

ii) Out of the said wedlock, one boy, namely, Daksh was born, who is minor and staying/residing with the petitioner - Pushpa.

iii) Petitioner-wife has no independent source of income and she is dependant upon/residing with her parents at Ward No.14, Nazdik Hanuman Mandir, Dadri, District Dadri.

iv) Present place of residence of the applicant/petitioner to Bawal-Rewari, is at a distance of about 200 Kms. (one side), thus, causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.

v) Since the petitioner-wife is residing with her parents in a village, which lacks convenient transportation options, thus, she is compelled to rely on public transit, resulting in significant hardships.

vi) Financial condition of the parental home of the petitioner-wife is also not sound, and her parental family lives in a hand to mouth condition.

vii) Petitioner-wife has also instituted a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and another petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which are pending adjudication in the Courts at Charkhi Dadri.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Nitish Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-husband opposed the prayer made in the present application for transfer of case from Rewari to Charkhi Dadri.

However, on a specific query by this Court that once respondent-husband is admittedly appearing in two cases instituted by applicant/petitioner at Charkhi Dadri, how such a plea is maintainable, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to give any satisfactory reply.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

5. In the facts and circumstances similar to the present case, in paragraph Nos. 9 & 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR 2022 SC 4318, Hon’ble the Apex 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.”

6. Further, Hon’ble the Apex Court in Rajani Kishor Pradeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, 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