The convenience of the wife about the venue in matrimonial causes is a significant factor to consider in granting a transfer under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Syed Irfan Ali, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dilip, learned Counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This is an application on behalf of the wife, seeking transfer of Case No. 92 of 2021, Anurag Yadav vs. Smt. Priyanka Yadav, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur to the Family Court at Hathras.

3. It has been pointed out at the outset by the learned Counsel for the applicant that earlier transfer application being Transfer Application (Civil) No. 424 of 2021 was dismissed as not pressed by the applicant on account of some negotiations towards a settlement then going on between parties. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that those negotiations have not fructified and, accordingly, the present application for transfer has been moved.

4. The applicant and the opposite party were married according to Hindu rites on 17.01.2020. The parties have admittedly turned an estranged couple. The applicant is staying at her parents' place at Hathras since 28.06.2020. There are two cases inter partes pending at Hathras, one being under the Domestic Violence Act and the other being a criminal prosecution, details whereof are mentioned in Paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application. It is the applicant’s case that she stays at her parents' house and her father and mother are elderly persons. Her brothers live separately. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for her to undertake the journey of more 200 kilometers from Hathras to Shahjahanpur on each date scheduled. In case, she is forced to attend at Shahjahanpur, her defence would be seriously compromised. There is also an averment in Paragraph No. 28 of the affidavit to the effect that the applicant was threatened, if she or any member of her family defended the matter at Shahjahanpur. It is next submitted that convenience of the wife about the venue in a matrimonial cause has to be accorded priority.

5. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for transfer. It is submitted that the applicant is gainfully employed as a teacher in a Government Junior High School since 21.09.2015. She receives a salary of about Rs. 70,000/-per month. She is capable of travelling from Hathras to Shahjahanpur. It is also emphasized that being a government teacher, she discharges election duties, census duties, Covid19 assignments etc. In the circumstances, to doubt her capacity to journey on every date from Hathras to Shahjahanpur is besides the point.

6. This Court has duly considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. There is no denial of the fact that the applicant and the opposite party are an estranged couple. The opposite party resides at Shahjahanpur, whereas the applicant after estrangement is staying with her parents at Hathras. Assuming that she is employed in a government school, it does not necessarily mean that she would be in a position to undertake regular journey from Hathras to Shahjahanpur on each date scheduled, which would be multiple in number. The applicant’s family comprising her old parents, does not disclose a profile, where she would have physical help ready at hand to act her as escort on every date scheduled at Shahjahanpur. That apart, two cases are pending at Hathras and the opposite party, who appears to be an able bodied man, has to appear in connection with those cases at Hathras. In the event present proceedings are transferred, all the three cases can be conveniently heard together by requesting the Courts concerned to schedule a single date. This course of action would save time and energy for both parties and lessen the travails of litigation.

7. Quite apart, the convenience of the wife about the venue is favoured in matrimonial causes and nothing has been shown in this case to make it different from the rule. In this regard, r