AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 685 words.
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
The lawyers are on strike.
Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Family Court, Sardulgarh, District Mansa to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Bathinda, Camp Court at Phul.
A perusal of the petition shows that on account of a matrimonial discord, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Phul, which is pending, however, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Sardulgarh, District Mansa. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 80 Kms between the aforesaid two places.
It is further stated that the petitioner is having a minor daughter, who is living in her care and custody and it is very difficult for her to defend the aforesaid petition at Sardulgarh.
Reliance is placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein it is observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”
It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.
In view of the above, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the fact that in case notice of motion is issued, even the respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in also in view of the judgments rendered in Sumita Singh’s case and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-
(i) The petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Sardulgarh, District Mansa will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Phul, District Bathinda.
(ii) The District Judge, Bathinda will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Family Court at Sardulgarh, District Mansa is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Bathinda.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court at Phul within a period of 01 month from today.
(v) The Courts concerned, where the cases are pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in a calendar month.
However, liberty is granted to the respondent-husband to revive this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-
(i) The respondent will clear all the arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in terms of the petition filed by the petitioner either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
(ii) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at Sardulgarh on each and every date of hearing.
(iii) The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the petitioner to pursue the case at Sardulgarh, in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.