The convenience of the wife is paramount in transfer petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act, considering economic conditions and hardships faced.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 11 - Transfer of matrimonial petition - Application for transfer filed by wife due to hardship in commuting from Ambala to Ludhiana - Court considers economic conditions, social standing, and convenience of the wife - Transfer granted to facilitate justice. (Paras 3, 8, 12)

(B) CPC - Section 24 - Cardinal principle for transfer - Ends of justice must be served, especially in matrimonial matters - Consideration of convenience and dependency of female litigants emphasized. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner-wife filed for transfer of her husband's petition from Ambala to Ludhiana, citing hardships due to distance and her financial dependency on parents. (Para 2)

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the transfer petition, directing the case to be moved to Ludhiana to consider the wife's convenience and hardship. (Paras 8, 12)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the transfer of the petition was justified given the circumstances of the wife. (Para 3)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in transfer applications involving wives, their convenience and economic condition must be prioritized, reflecting the socio-economic realities of Indian society. (Paras 4, 6)

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.(Oral)

Present transfer application has been filed by the petitioner - wife, under section 24 of CPC, for seeking transfer of the petition bearing No. HMA/110/2022, filed by the respondent - husband, under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act XXV of 1955), titled as, "Sanjay Gupta v. Aarti Bansal" pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambala to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana.

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

i) That the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband got married on 28.02.2020, at Ludhiana, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies.

ii) That out of the said wedlock, no child was born. However, respondent was earlier married, and out of that wedlock, he has two children, who after the divorce are under the care and custody of his earlier wife.

iii) That the petitioner-wife is 10+2 pass and is not earning anything, while the respondent-husband is running a shoe shop along with his uncle and also doing online business, and thus, he earns a handsome amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to 1,20,000/- p.m.

iv) That travelling from Ambala to Ludhiana, is a distance of around 110 kms (one side), which takes around 4-5 hours, thus, causing extreme hardships to the petitioner-wife.

v) That the petitioner-wife is financially dependent on parents, who also remain sick most of the time, due to their age and other ailments, and lacks convenient transportation options, thus, is compelled to rely on public transit, resulting in significant hardships.

vi. That a complaint filed by the petitioner-wife under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, bearing No. COMA-7427/2022 (Aarti Gupta @ Aarti Bansal v. Sanjay Gupta), is also pending consideration before the Illaqa Magistrate, Ludhiana. Next date of hearing in the said case is fixed for 23.11.2023.

Thus, prays for transferring of petition filed by the respondent husband at Amabla to Ludhiana.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 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."

4. 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."

5. However, to avoid any misuse of the lenient view by