T.A. No.304 of 2010 `-1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Transfer Application No. 304 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.9.2010 Inderjeet Kaur ... Applicant vs Tejpal Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition titled as “Tejpal Singh v. Inderjeet Kaur” 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, Patiala to the court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Sikh rites on 30.5.1993 at Jalandhar. Out of this wedlock, two daughters were born. After the marriage, the respondent and his parents never allowed her to settle in the matrimonial home. She was turned out of the matrimonial home. She along with her minor daughters is now living with her parents at Jalandhar. She filed a complaint before the Women Cell, Jalandhar, which is pending. She also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for maintenance, which is also pending at Jalandhar. The respondent is already appearing in these cases at Jalandhar. The divorce petition has been filed by the husband at Patiala only to harass her and her family members. No maintenance is being paid to the applicant. She has no source of income. It was submitted that it is very difficult for the applicant to attend court proceedings by travelling 160 kilometers from Jalandhar to Patiala along with her minor daughters. Father of the applicant is an old man. There is no one in the family to accompany her to attend the court T.A. No.304 of 2010 `-2- proceedings 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 Patiala be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. 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. Though she is working in school but the husband is doing nothing. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paperbook. 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 T.A. No.304 of 2010 `-3- 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 filed under Section 9 of the Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, was T.A. No.304 of 2010 `-4- 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 Jalandhar along with her minor children at her parents house. The petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Act is pending at Patiala. The wife has alleged that the petition has been filed at Patiala only to harass her as two other cases filed by her were already pending at Jalandhar in which the husband had been appearing before the filing of divorce petition. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife, who is living along with her minor daughters at the mercy of her parents at Jalandhar, to attend hearing of the divorce petition at Patiala which is about 160 kilometers from Jalandhar. Both the children are studying in School at Jalandhar. 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 titled as Tejpal Singh v. Inderjeet Kaur which is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, deserves to be transferred to Jalandhar. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before District Judge, Jalandhar on 15.10.2010 for further proceedings. The District Judge, Jalandhar may either keep it with him or entrust the same to any other competent Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. 28.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) renu Judge