TA No. 448 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Transfer Application No. 448 of 2009 Date of decision :13.9.2010 Sudesh Rani ... Applicant vs Radhey Shyam .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Radhey Shyam versus Sudesh Rani filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, `the Act') by the respondent- husband from the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. Service of respondent is complete. However, at the time of hearing, no one had appeared for respondent. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites on 27.2.2009 at Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. No child was born out of wedlock. The applicant and the respondent lived as husband and wife until July, 2009, only after which, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Now the applicant is living at her parental house at Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act at Jhajjar. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition filed by the respondent- husband at Jhajjar, being a poor lady, who is living at the mercy of her parents with no source of income. The applicant is not even being paid any maintenance. Distance between Jhajjar to Bhiwani is about 100 kilometers and it is very difficult for a lady to travel alone to attend the court proceedings and that too under adverse circumstances created by the respondent- husband, who used to TA No. 448 of 2009 -2- threaten her on one pretext or the other. The applicant has also filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent in the Court of JMIC, at Bhiwani. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Jhajjar be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bhiwani. No one had appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing to controvert the argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 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 TA No. 448 of 2009 -3- 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 TA No. 448 of 2009 -4- 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 Bhiwani with her parents. The petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act is pending at Jhajjar. The wife has alleged that the petition filed at Jhajjar has been filed 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 Bhiwani, to attend hearing of the petition at Jhajjar which is about 100 kilometers from Bhiwani. 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, Jhajjar titled as Radhey Shyam versus Sudesh Rani, deserves to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Bhiwani. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Bhiwani, on 25.9.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Bhiwani may either keep it with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court. As the respondent remained unrepresented before this Court, the factum regarding the transfer of the petition from Jhajjar to Bhiwani shall be brought to the notice of the respondent or his counsel by the Court concerned at Kapurthala on the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 13.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) renu Judge