T.A. No.3 of 2010 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Transfer Application No. 3 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.9.2010 Raj Rani ... Applicant vs Parkash Mehra .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pankaj Middha, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Jaswinder Singh Arora, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband against the applicant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') from Kaithal to Jind. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites on 27.6.2004 at Jind. After the marriage, the respondent and his parents never allowed her to live in the matrimonial home. She was turned out of the matrimonial home. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. She is living at the mercy of her Bua as her parents are no more. The respondent has already been convicted in the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 498-A/ 406 IPC and he is undergoing two years rigorous imprisonment at District Jail, Jind. He has challenged the conviction order and the appeal is pending before the Sessions Judge, Jind. The applicant has also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance, in which the maintenance was initially fixed at ` 500/- per month, which was later on revised to ` 1,000/- per month but nothing has been paid to the applicant till date. The divorce petition has been filed in November, 2009 by the husband only to harass her and her family members. She has no source of income. It was submitted that it is very difficult for the applicant to attend court proceedings by travelling from Jind to Kaithal. T.A. No.3 of 2010 (O&M) -2- There is no one in the family to accompany her to attend the court proceedings at Kaithal. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Kaithal be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Jind. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was submitted that as the petition filed by the respondent is of civil nature, she need not visit the court regularly. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 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 T.A. No.3 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 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." The issue regarding transfer of matrimonial proceedings almost in similar circumstances came up for consideration before this Court as well in a number of cases earlier. It has been the consistent view that primarily the convenience of the wife is to be given weightage for ordering transfer of proceedings at or near the place where she is residing. In Veena alias Arti vs Pawan Kumar, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 558 (P&H) : 1998 (1) M.L.J. 316, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband at Sultanpur Lodhi were ordered to be transferred to Amritsar by this Court. In Smt. Sonia vs Rajnish Kumar Arora, 1997 (2) RCR (Civil) 361 (P&H) : 1998 (1) M.L.J. 37, this Court ordered transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Act from Ludhiana to Amritsar. On yet another occasion in Suman vs Gopal, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 26, having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay and another, A.I.R. 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001 (1) M.L.J. 509 (S.C.), this Court ordered the transfer of matrimonial proceedings from Gurgaon to Faridabad. The relevant observations from Neelam Kanwar's case (supra) are extracted as under:- “We are midful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, (for) convenience of wife, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless, it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No special reason is shown.” In Milli vs Mukesh Kumar, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 422, a petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, was ordered to be transferred from Jagadhari to Amritsar on an application filed T.A. No.3 of 2010 (O&M) -4- by the wife. As is evident from the cases referred to above, the principle of law with regard to transfer of cases especially regarding matrimonial disputes is quite settled, where consistent opinion is that it is always the convenience of wife which has to be given due weightage for ordering the transfer of proceedings at or near the place where the wife is residing. In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing at Jind at her Bua's house. The petition filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Act is pending at Kaithal. The wife has alleged that the petition has been filed at Kaithal only to harass her. Three cases are already pending at Jind, which are being attended by the respondent/ husband. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife, who is living at the mercy of her Bua at Jind, to attend hearing of the divorce petition at Kaithal. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the wife which is the paramount consideration, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent which is pending in the Court of District Judge, Kaithal titled as Parkash Mehra vs Raj Rani, deserves to be transferred to Jind. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Jind, on 9.10.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Jind may either keep it with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 23.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) renu. Judge