1

Court No. - 6

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 254 of 2022

Applicant :- Smt. Sonali Saini

Opposite Party :- Robin Saini

Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Kushwaha

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1.

No counter affidavit has been filed.

2.

A perusal of the office report dated 04.08.2022 shows that

notice issued by RPAD to the sole opposite party has led to a

postal track report as "Item Delivery Confirmed".

3.

Looking to the said report, service upon the sole opposite

party is deemed sufficient. Office report also shows that no one

has put in appearance.

4.

When the case is called on today, no one appears on

behalf of the respondent.

5.

Mr. R.C. Kushwaha, learned Counsel is present on behalf

of the applicant.

6.

Admit.

7.

Heard forthwith.

8.

Heard Mr. R.C. Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the

applicant in support of this application.

9.

This is a transfer application on behalf of the wife, seeking

transfer of Case No. 330 of 2020, Robin Saini vs. Smt. Sonali

Saini, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from

Principal Judge, Family Court, Shamli at Kairana to the Family

Court at Muzaffar Nagar.

2

10.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant

that there are three cases inter partes pending at Muzaffar

Nagar, details whereof are mentioned in Paragraph No.16 of

the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application. The

applicant, who is a housewife, has no source of income of her

own and stays with her father. She is financially dependent

upon her father and it is not possible for her to travel the

distance between the two stations on each date fixed. The

distance between Muzaffar Nagar and Kairana is about 55

kilometers. The applicant also has the responsibility of bringing

up her child, who is aged about 5 years and on account of

which it is difficult to travel frequently. The applicant and her

child are not being paid a single penny in maintenance as

averred in Paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit. In the

circumstances, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits

that if the applicant is forced to attend at Kairana, Shamli, her

defence would be seriously prejudiced. It is next submitted that

convenience of the wife about the venue in a matrimonial cause

has to be accorded priority.

11.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

opposite party. As such, the averments in the affidavit filed in

support of the transfer application remain unrebutted.

12.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, this

Court finds that there are three cases pending inter partes at

Muzaffar Nagar: one is a case under the Domestic Violence

Act, the other an application for maintenance under Section 125

Cr.P.C. and the third, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is nothing on

record to show that the opposite party has applied for transfer

of any of these cases from Muzaffar Nagar to Shamli or any

3

other district. In the circumstances, the opposite party would, in

any case, appear in the three cases instituted at Muzaffar

Nagar by the applicant. As such, if the present case is

transferred from Shamli to Muzaffar Nagar, all the four cases

would be venued at the same station, which would promote

ease of litigation for both parties. The parties can request a

single date in all the matters, in consequence whereof, the time

and resources of parties would be saved. It is also true that the

applicant does not seem to have any source of income of her

own and is dependent upon her father. In the circumstances,

attending at Shamli on each date scheduled there may impair

her defence. It is also true that she has a young child of five

years to take care of, which would further impair her ability in

defending outstation litigation.

13.

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