In matrimonial transfer petitions, courts must prioritize the convenience of the wife and consider all relevant socioeconomic factors to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Present transfer application, under section 24 CPC, has been filed by the petitioner - wife, for seeking transfer of the petition, bearing No. DMC/210/2023, filed by the respondent-husband, under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, titled as "Kuldeep Singh v. Piyushi", presently pending in the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-3, Fatehgarh Sahib, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

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

i) Petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on 20.03.2019, at at Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, according to the Sikh rites and ceremonies.

ii) Out of the said wedlock, one male child, namely, Elif, now aged about aged about 3 ½ years was born, who is minor and staying/residing with the petitioner.

iii) Petitioner-wife has instituted following litigations against respondent-husband, which are pending in the Courts at Ludhiana:-

a) FIR No.62 dated 20.0.2023, under Section 498A IPC, registered at Police Station Women, Ludhiana;

b) A complaint bearing COMA/50881/2023, under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and

c) A petition bearing No. MNT/21708/2023 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance.

Respondent-husband is contesting the said litigation in the Courts at Ludhiana.

iv) Traveling from Ludhiana to Fatehgarh Sahib, is a distance of around 60 Kms (one side), which takes around 1 hour, thus, causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife as well as the minor child.

iv) Petitioner-wife is financially dependent on her parents. Due to lack of convenient transportation options, she is compelled to rely on public transport, resulting in significant hardships.

v) 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.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record.

4. 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."

5. 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 transfer of legal proceedings from one court to another should ordinary be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."

6. However, to avoid any