TA No. 222 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Transfer Application No. 222 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.9.2010 Poonam Malhotra ... Applicant vs Vikrant Malhotra .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition titled as “Vikrant Malhotra vs. Poonam Malhotra” filed by the respondent/husband against the applicant-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana to the court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites on 3.12.2007 at Ludhiana. No child was born out of this wedlock. After the marriage, the respondent and his parents never allowed her to live in the matrimonial home. Ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home. She is living at the mercy of her parents. The divorce petition has been filed by the husband only to harass her and her family members. She has no source of income. The applicant is not even being paid any maintenance. It was submitted that it is very difficult for the applicant to attend court proceedings by travelling 80 kilometers from Ludhiana to Patiala. She is living at the mercy of her parents with no source of income. She apprehends danger to her life at the hands of the respondent while going to Ludhiana to attend the case. It is not difficult for the respondent to attend case at Patiala as he is already attending two cases filed by the applicant under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and another complaint under the Prevention TA No. 222 of 2010 -2- of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Patiala. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Ludhiana be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Patiala. 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. She can also get the facility of legal aid in case she cannot engage an advocate. She can be paid expenses for visiting Ludhiana to attend the hearing of the case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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 TA No. 222 of 2010 -3- 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." 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 TA No. 222 of 2010 -4- 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. In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing at Patiala at her parents house. The petition filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Act is pending at Ludhiana. The wife has alleged that the petition has been filed at Ludhiana only to harass her. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife, who is living at the mercy of her parents at Patiala, to attend hearing of the divorce petition at Ludhiana which is about 80 kilometers from Ludhiana. 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 Additional District Judge, Ludhiana titled as Vikrant Malhotra vs Poonam Malhotra, deserves to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Patiala. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Patiala, on 4.10.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Patiala may either keep it with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 15.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) renu Judge