Jagpal Kaur vs Paramjit Singh

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

While issuing notice of motion on 09.10.2020, the following order was passed:

“Petitioner seeks transfer of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act titled 'Paramjit Singh vs. Jagpal Kaur' from the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Phul, District Bathinda.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that marriage was solemnized on 02.11.1997 and a son was born out of the wedlock on 15.09.1998. Owing to the cruelty meted out by the respondent to the petitioner, she has already moved a representation to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on 27.05.2020. The second representation was also moved before the Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on 18.09.2020, when the respondent wanted to kill the petitioner and thrown her out of the matrimonial house.

Learned counsel by relying upon Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, (2000) 10 SCC 589 contends that the case is to be transferred to the place of abode of a woman, unless the same causes irreparable loss to the husband. In the matters arising out of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the womenfolk is to be appreciated.

Notice of motion for 17.11.2020.

Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur shall remain stayed.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent- husband is serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Police and despite service he is not appearing.

Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

As per office report, the respondent is served, however, there is no representation on his behalf.

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.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that if the aforesaid petition is not transferred, the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and also in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-

(i) The petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur 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 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur 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, Bathinda within a period of 01 month from today.

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 Sangrur, 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 Sangrur, in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.