Smt. Vandana Garg vs Sanjay Kumar Garg

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—This is petition u/s 24 of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for transfer of a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") filed by the respondent husband titled as "Sanjay Kumar v. Vandana" pending in the Court of Mrs. Neena Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Karnal to the Court of District Judge, Panchkula.

As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a household lady and has one small child and both of them have been living at Panchkula at the house of the petitioner''s parents. She has no independent source of income-and she and her lone son are at the mercy of petitioner''s parents. It is difficult for her to contest or defend the proceedings pending at a distant place i.e. at Karnal. There is no other male member in the family except her father and one brother. Her father is a Government employee and thus cannot accompany her on all dates of hearing to Karnal and petitioner''s brother is pursuing his studies. The petitioner''s son being of a small age can neither be taken to the Court at Karnal nor can he can left behind alone with her parents.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Dsisy Vs. Rajbir Singh Phogat, and on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another, and contended that in view of the facts mentioned above, the petition u/s 9 of the Act pending at Karnal deserves to be transferred to Panchkula. Counsel for the respondent, however, opposed the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner and stated that there is no justification for ordering transfer of the petition.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be granted. In Smt. Daisy''s case (supra), the matrimonial proceedings pending in the Court at Rohtak were ordered to be transferred to Jind having regard to the fact that the distance between the place where the wife was residing and Rohtak where the petition was pending, was nearly 100 Kms. and also the fact that she was to go all alone to attend the proceedings at Rohtak. In other words, the convenience of the wife was considered to be the primary factor Jorordering transfer.

In Sumita Singh''s case (supra) as well, it was again the convenience of the wife which was considered to be a paramount consideration by the Apex Court for ordering transfer of matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband.

In the present petition as well, it is the uncontroverted case of the petitioner that she along with her small child has been living in the house of her parents at Panchkula and she has no independent source of income to bear the expenses of visiting Karnal to attend the proceedings. She being a lady was finding it very difficult to travel all alone to Karnal to attend the proceedings as there is no other male member in her family who may accompany her all the times to Karnal.

In view of the facts as stated above and the observations made in the aforesaid decisions, the petition is allowed. The petition u/s 9 of the Act titled as "Sanjay Kumar v. Smt. Vandand" is withdraw from the file of the Additional District Judge, Karnal and is transferred to the file of District Judge, Panchkula. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of District Judge, Panchkula on 1.8.2005. Since further proceedings in the above petition were stayed, it is directed that the transferee Court shall now proceed to dispose of the petition in accordance with law. It shall be open to the District Judge Panchkula either to retain the transferred petition on his own Board to assign to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Panchkula.