TA No. 240 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh TA No. 240 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.11.2010 Smt. Meenakshi ... Applicant vs Amritpal Garg .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. S. S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition titled as “Amritpal Garg vs Meenakshi” 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, SAS Nagar, Mohali, to the court of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites on 27.9.2006 at Bathinda. It is alleged that the respondent and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the applicant's parents. It was also alleged that she was beaten by the respondent and turned out of the matrimonial home. The applicant also lodged FIR and filed complaint against the respondent and his family members. She is now living with her old aged parents at Ludhiana. Her younger brother is running a stationary shop at Ludhiana. She came to know about the divorce petition filed by the husband in the court of learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, only when she received the notice. The same has been filed by the husband only to harass her and her family members. She is working as Teacher at Ludhiana. It was submitted that it is very difficult for the applicant to attend court proceedings by travelling from Ludhiana to Mohali. There is no one in the family to accompany her to attend the court proceedings at Mohali. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Mohali be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Ludhiana. TA No. 240 of 2010 (2) 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 and perused the paper-book. The issue regarding transfer of case from one Court to another has been considered 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." TA No. 240 of 2010 (3) 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. In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing along with her old aged parents and working at Ludhiana. The petition filed by the husband for divorce under Section 13 of the Act is pending at Mohali. The wife has alleged that the petition filed at Mohali 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 Ludhiana, to attend hearing of the divorce petition at Mohali 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 TA No. 240 of 2010 (4) by the respondent which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali titled as Amritpal Garg vs Meenakshi, deserves to be transferred to Family Court, Ludhiana. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Family Court, Ludhiana, on 4.12.2010 for further proceedings. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 9.11.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge