Gurdarshan Kaur v. Supreet Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-216-2024 Date  ! De"#$# %: 28&02&2024 Gurdarshan Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Supreet Singh ...Respondent CORA':  HON(B)E 'R& JU*TICE +I,A* *URI Present:- Mr. Devinder S. Dhanoa, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** +I,A* *URI- J& .ORA)/ . Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, bearing HMA No.2167 of 2023, titled as Supreet Singh vs. Gurdarshan Kaur, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. !. "earned counse# for the petitioner su$%its that: i&  That the parties were married on 21.2.2018 according to Sikh rites and rituals. ii& That a male child was born out of this wedlock on 30.03.2021, who is in the care and custody of the petitioner. iii& That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband and presently living with her parents at their mercy at Morinda, District Rupnagar (Ropar). Earlier she was residing with her parents at Amritsar but later on shifted to Morinda, Rupnagar (Ropar). TA-216-2024 -2-        2024:PHHC:027737

iv) That the proceedings arising out of petitions :-

(a) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; and

(b) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar (Ropar).

v) That the respondent-husband has also filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act,189, titled as Supreet Singh vs. Gurdarshan Kaur, at District Court, Amritsar, which has been transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar vide order dated 29.11.2022 passed in TA-1458-2022.

vi) That the respondent-husband has also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, before the Family Court, Amritsar, which was decreed ex parte. The petitioner has moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte decree and the said application has also been transferred vide order dated 21.03.2023 passed in TA-1429-2022 from the Family Court, Amritsar, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. vii&  That the distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Morinda, District Rupnagar (Ropar) and the place of proceedings in application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, is about 200 kilometers of one side. '.  (t is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner pra)s for transfer of the case, as detai#ed in para   a$ove. *.  +eard #earned counse# for the petitioner. ,.  -esides the facts as noticed hereina$ove, the #ega# position in such #i.e cases as the present one, is /e## esta$#ished. (n this regard, 0udg%ent of the +on1$#e Supre%e 2ourt rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. TA-216-2024 -3-        2024:PHHC:027737 A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, wherein the 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.

10.  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."

6.  Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396 and Rajani  Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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." TA-216-2024 -4-        2024:PHHC:027737

7.  Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, 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 the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the 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.

8.  After going through the entire paper-book, 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 case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. 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 deems it appropriate   to   allow   the   present   petition,   subject   to   the   following conditions:- a)  The petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, bearing HMA No.2167 of 2023, titled as Supreet Singh vs. Gurdarshan Kaur, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar, is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar TA-216-2024 -5-        2024:PHHC:027737 b)  The   learned   District   Judge,   Amritsar,   is   directed   to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Rupnagar. c)  The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Rupnagar, on 19.04.2024. d)  The District Judge, Rupnagar, will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

9.  The concerned Court at Rupnagar will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties.

10.  The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.

11.  However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-

(a)  The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in terms of any 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.

(b)  The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.2,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at District Courts, Amritsar, on each and every date of hearing.

(c)  The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/-, drawn in favour of petitioner, towards the litigation expenses to pursue the case at District Amritsar, in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.

12.  I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in  TA-1315-2022,  Rohini Arora vs. Nitin Talwar; TA-216-2024 -6-        2024:PHHC:027737 TA-1322-2022,  Jaswinder   Kaur   vs.   Gurvinderjeet   Singh;   and TA-1323-2022, Usha Rani vs. Karmajit Singh.

13.  As already noticed above, since the petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent, accordingly, in these peculiar circumstances, in order to ensure appearance of the parties before the District Judge, Rupnagar, on 19.04.2024, it is directed that a copy of this order be sent to the respondent through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e-mail. Petitioner through   her  counsel,  present  in  the  Court,  is   directed  to  ensure  her appearance accordingly.

¶14Disposed of. ( VIKAS SURI ) February 28, 2024 JUDGE