Transfer of proceedings under the DV Act may be granted based on the age and medical condition of a party, considering the hardship of travel and the location of the matrimonial home, provided no compelling counter-circumstances exist to outweigh such hardship.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present Transfer Application is for transfer of the complaint bearing No.COMA/86/2022 titled as “Manpreet Kaur vs. Jatindervir Singh and others” (Annexure P-2), filed by respondent No.1 under Section 12 seeking reliefs under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the DV Act’), pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the son of the applicant was married to respondent No.1 on 27.03.2022. It is submitted that the son of the applicant ordinarily resides and is employed in Canada and had left for Canada on 05.05.2022, shortly after the marriage. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 also left the matrimonial home on 24.07.2022 and started residing at her parental home. No child has been born out of the wedlock.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act instituted by respondent No.1 against her husband, the present applicant, and other family members deserves to be transferred from Malerkotla to Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), primarily on the ground that the applicant is an elderly lady aged more than 58 years and is suffering from various age-related ailments. It is argued that the matrimonial home of respondent No.1 was admittedly situated at Kharar and, therefore, the dispute substantially relates to the said jurisdiction. It is also contended that the distance between Malerkotla and Kharar is approximately 100 kilometers one side, making it difficult for the applicant to undertake frequent travel in view of her age and medical condition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the present transfer application. It is submitted that the applicant was previously employed as a teacher in a Government school and is presently drawing pensionary benefits, whereas respondent No.1 has no independent source of income. It is further argued that under the provisions of the DV Act, the aggrieved person is entitled to institute proceedings at a place permissible under law and the same need not necessarily be confined to the place where the cause of action arose. Learned counsel has also pointed out that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by respondent No.1 are already pending at Malerkotla. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the husband has filed the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act through the present applicant, who is GPA holder of her son.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a party to the proceedings instituted by respondent No.1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, pendency of the said proceedings at Malerkotla cannot be construed as a ground to decline the present prayer for transfer.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the paper-book.

7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has been able to make out a sufficient ground for transfer of the complaint in question from Malerkotla to Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

8. It is not disputed that the applica