T.A. No. 144 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 144 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.8.2010. Sunita ....Applicant Versus Jagdish ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Jagdish Vs. Sunita filed under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of guardian by the respondent-husband from the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Dera Bassi. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites at village Dhand on 29.6.1990. Out of the wedlock a female child was born. Due to difference between the parties the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act vide order dated 12.12.2002. The respondent has now filed a petition for the appointment of guardian of the son born out of the wedlock at Panipat. The applicant has now again got re-married and is living with her second husband at Dera Bassi. Distance between Derabassi to Panipat is about 200 kilometers. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition filed by the respondent- husband at Panipat. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Panipat be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Derabassi. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant. However, it was submitted that T.A. No. 144 of 2010 2 in case this Court still finds that the petition deserves to be transferred from Panipat, the same may be transferred to any other place than Derabassi as she has again remarried. Convenience of both the parties be seen. The issue regarding transfer of case from one Court to another has been discussed by Courts in numerous judgments. In Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008 (3) SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters to be considered for the purpose, while opining that the same cannot be treated as exhaustive but illustrative in nature. The relevant Para-14 thereof is extracted hereunder: “Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. Reading Sections 24 and 25 of the Code together and keeping in view various judicial pronouncements, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer have been laid down by Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or defendant or witnesses; convenience or inconvenience of a particular place of trial having regard to the nature of evidence on the points involved in the suit; issues raised by the parties; reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the court in which the suit is pending; important questions of law involved or a considerable section of public interested in the litigation; interest of justice demanding for transfer of suit, appeal or other proceeding, etc. Above are some of the instances which are germane in considering the question of transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceedings. They are, however, illustrative in nature and by no means be treated as exhaustive. If on the above or other relevant considerations, the Court feels that the plaintiff or the defendant is not likely to have a fair trial in the Court from which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but the duty of the Court to make such order." In the present case, the applicant is residing at Derabassi. The T.A. No. 144 of 2010 3 petition under Section under Section 7-10 & 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent at Panipat. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the lady living with her second husband, to attend hearing of the petition at Panipat. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the lady which is the paramount consideration, but even the contention raised by the respondent is also required to be considered, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat titled as Jagdish Vs. Sunita, deserves to be transferred to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala on 10.9.2010 for further proceedings. The petition is to be dealt with by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The application stands disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 5.8.2010 JUDGE Reema