322 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 13.01.2025 Nitin Diwan ...... Petitioner Versus Rajni Bhatia @ Rajni Diwan @ Aradhna Diwan ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Kusum Raj, Advocate for the respondent.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Instant revision petition is directed against order dated 06.02.2024 whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the petition filed by respondent under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘the 1890 Act’) stands declined.

2 Parties to the lis are husband and wife who are living separately. They are fighting for the custody of a minor child. Earlier petitioner filed petition under Section 7 and 8 of the 1890 Act before District Judge, Ludhiana at Ludhiana seeking legal custody of the child even though the child was physically with him. Respondent-wife moved an application seeking transfer of the same before this Court. The same was allowed vide order dated 27.03.2019 observing as under :-

“ After hearing the rival contentions and going through the authorities referred to by learned counsel for the parties, I find that no doubt the competent Court having jurisdiction over the area where the minor actually resides has got the jurisdiction but other facts and circumstances are also to be taken into consideration. According to the applicant, she does not have any source of income. It is difficult for her to travel from Jalandhar to Ludhiana to attend the dates of hearing in the Court there.

The Apex Court in various judgments has observed that in matrimonial disputes between the spouses convenience of wife should be looked into. In that regard a reference can be made to authority Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 396 by a Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav Versus Ravibhai Govindbhai Rav, 2017(3) RCR(Civil) 369, the Apex Court had allowed application for transfer of the divorce petition to a place where the wife was residing considering various factors including the distance between the place where the wife was residing and the place of sitting of the Court where divorce petition had been instituted and the fact that the wife had filed two cases against her husband in the Court at the place of her residence wherein the respondent had already put in appearance.

In Apurva Versus Navtej Singh, 2017(2) Law Herald 966 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was observed that wherever the Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial disputes, the Courts have to take into consideration various factors like economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the spouses to which they belong and behavioural pattern, standard of life antecedents of marriage. Generally it is the wife's convenience, which must be looked at by the Courts while deciding the transfer application.

Keeping in view the contentions in the application and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, in which I find merit, in absence of any strong circumstance to the contrary, it would be proper and appropriate, if the application is accepted. The same is accordingly allowed. The petition in question is ordered to be withdrawn from the Court of Guardian Judge, Ludhiana and transferred to Family Court at Jalandhar for disposal in accordance with law.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the transferee Court on 25.04.2019. Copies of orders be sent to both the Courts for information and necessary compliance.”

After the proceedings were transferred to Family Court Jalandhar, petitioner withdrew the custody application.

3 The instant petition has been filed by respondent-wife seeking custody of child invoking Section 7 and 8 of the 1890 Act. The petition has been instituted at Jalandhar. In the present petition, petitioner fil