JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

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 "Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. Rajni Bala" pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court Camp at Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits:-

i) That the parties were married in the year 2012 according to Hindu rites and rituals.

ii) That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who is around 9 years of age and is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband and living with her minor child at the mercy of her real sister at Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur as her mother had died and her father does not support her.

iv) That the petitioner is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her real sister, while the respondent-husband, who is serving in Indian Army, earning more than Rs.80,000/- per month, is not paying anything to her towards maintenance.

v) That the proceedings arising out of petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Complaint under Sections 323, 325, 452, 341, 342, 427, 34 IPC; filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur.

vi) That the distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and the place of proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, is about 140 kilometers, one side.

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.

5. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, 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, 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."

6. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in " 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 trans