TA No. 87 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh TA No. 87 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2010 Mrs. Komal ... Applicant vs Randev Singh Sandhu .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. R. N. Moudgil, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition titled as “Randev Singh vs Komal” filed by the respondent/husband against the applicant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') from Rupnagar to Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Sikh rites on 18.2.2004 at Gurudwara Sahib, Sector 34, Chandigarh. No child was born out of the wedlock. The respondent is working as Professor of Physics at BAM Khalsa College, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. It is the second marriage of both the parties. However, soon after the marriage, the respondent started maltreating the applicant for not bringing sufficient dowry. In the application filed by the applicant wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, fixed the maintenance @ ` 2,500/- per month vide order dated 23.8.2008. The appeal filed by her for enhancement of maintenance is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Case bearing FIR No. 468 dated 24.11.2006 got registered by the applicant wife against the respondent husband under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, wherein the police has filed challan, is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. It was alleged that during the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent filed divorce petition at Rupnagar which is pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge. It was submitted that the applicant wife is living with her widow mother and there is no other person in the family to accompany her to attend the court TA No. 87 of 2010 (2) proceedings at Rupnagar. It was submitted that as the respondent is coming from Nawanshahar to Rupnagar to attend the court proceedings he can easily come to Chandigarh while travelling just 50 kilometers more. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition filed by the respondent-husband at Rupnagar, being a poor lady, who is living with her widow mother with no source of income. No one is there in the family to accompany her to attend hearings of the case at Rupnagar. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Rupnagar be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Chandigarh. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant can be compensated by the respondent by paying the expenses to be incurred by her in travelling for attending hearings of case at Rupnagar. 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 TA No. 87 of 2010 (3) 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." 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 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. TA No. 87 of 2010 (4) In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing at Chandigarh along with her widow mother. Two cases filed by the applicant are pending at Chandigarh. The petition for divorce was filed by the husband at Rupnagar. The wife has alleged that the petition filed at Rupnagar has been filed only to harass her. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife, who is living with her widow mother, to attend hearing of the divorce petition at Rupnagar. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the wife which is the paramount consideration and further the conduct of the respondent, in my opinion, the petition filed by the respondent which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar titled as Randev Singh vs Komal, deserves to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Chandigarh, on 16.9.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Chandigarh may either keep it with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 24.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge