The convenience of a wife in matrimonial disputes is significant but not absolute; cogent reasons must be shown for transferring proceedings initiated by her.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The case in hand is a transfer petition preferred by the petitioner-wife under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking transfer of the maintenance petition, filed by her, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 from the Family Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali to a competent Family Court at Barnala, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner- wife had been turned out of the matrimonial home and thereafter she started residing at Barnala in the first instance. Thereafter, on account of compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to move to Mohali, Punjab to reside with her brother. The petitioner had, at that time, instituted the maintenance petition at Family Court, Mohali in the year 2020. Thereafter, due to supervening circumstances, she has to move back to her parental home in District Barnala (Punjab). It is on this account primarily that the transfer of the maintenance petition from Mohali (Punjab) to Barnala (Punjab) is sought for. Learned counsel has iterated that it is extremely difficult and inconvenient for the petitioner to pursue her case further at Mohali since she is living at Barnala. It has been submitted that the distance between the Mohali to Barnala is 167 kilometers. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no able adult member in the family of the petitioner-wife who can accompany her to attend the Court proceedings. Thus, the transfer of the maintenance petition from Mohali to Barnala is sought for.

3. Notice of motion was issued wherein after reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent-husband. It has been iterated by the learned counsel for the respondent that a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has also been instituted by the petitioner- wife which is pending adjudication at Mohali. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has further argued that one criminal revision petition (seeking enhancement of interim maintenance) is also pending adjudication at Mohali which has also been instituted at the instance of the wife. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has further iterated that a counsel has already been engaged at Mohali by the respondent (husband) and, therefore, the transfer of the maintenance petition will result in additional financial burden upon the respondent-husband. In view of these submissions, the dismissal of the petition in hand is sought for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.

5. The seminal issue in the case in hand is whether the maintenance petition, preferred by the petitioner-wife, before the Family Court at Mohali, Punjab deserves to be transferred to a competent Family Court at Barnala (Punjab).

6. Section 407 of Cr.P.C., 1973 encapsulates the statutory provision regarding the power of the High Court to transfer cases and appeals from one Court to another within its jurisdiction. At this juncture, it would be germane to reiterate that the equivalent provision contained in Section 447 of BNSS, 2023 is, in essence, on similar lines insofar as the parameters for transferring of criminal cases/appeals is concerned.

6.1. An elementary reading of the above provision(s) reflects that the parameters for consideration for exercise of power under this provision are viz. fair and impartial enquiry or trial; a question of law of unusual difficulty arising; the general convenience of parties to the lis; the general convenience of the witnesses; the law (Cr.P.C. or BNSS) requiring such an order to be passed & expediency for the ends of justice.

6.2. It goes without saying that assurance of a fair trial; to all the parties to the lis, witnesses, as also the public at large; is the paramount feature of criminal justice dispensation system. A fair trial is the cornerstone of our criminal jurisprudence and denial of fair trial, to all the concerned, is crucifixion of human rights. Fairness of the trial is