High CourtsSingle Bench

Jyoti @ Ena vs Atul

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 September 2022 · Citation: (2022) 09 P&H CK 0105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 323, 498A, 506 · Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 24
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Transfer Application No. 1296 Of 2022 (O&M)
Ask AI about this case

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 · 759 words

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J

Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Sonipat to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Faridabad.

While issuing notice of motion, following order was passed by this Court on 06.01.2022: -

“...Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 20.02.2018. The petitioner is residing with her parents at Faridabad and in order to attend the proceedings before the Family Court at Sonipat, she would have to travel a distance of 88 kms (one way). It is further contended that the petitioner has got registered FIR No.70 dated 28.02.2019 under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad.”

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 has further relied upon N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: -

“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.”

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, opposed the prayer for transfer of petition filed by the respondent-husband.

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 parties, considering the fact that the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the judgments in Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deem it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:-

1.

The petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Sonipat will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Faridabad.

2.

The District Judge, Faridabad will assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.

3.

The Family Court, Sonipat is directed to transfer all the record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Faridabad.

4.

The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Faridabad within a period of 01 month from today.

5.

The Family Court, Faridabad will make all the endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.

6.

The Court concerned, where the litigations between the parties are pending, will accommodate them with one date in one calender month.

Present petition is disposed of accordingly.