TA No. 218 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh TA No. 218 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision :23.8.2010 Sukhwinder Kaur ... Applicant vs Bhupinder Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant. None for the respondent despite service. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Bhupinder Singh vs Sukhwinder Kaur, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent-husband from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Service of respondent is complete. However, at the time of hearing, no one had appeared for him. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites by way of Anand Karaj on 26.3.2008. Soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members started maltreating the applicant for not bringing sufficient dowry. One child was born out of the wedlock on 1.1.2009. All the expenses of delivery were borne out by the parents of the applicant. Neither the respondent nor any of his family members visited the house of the applicant to see the newly born baby. In February 2009, the applicant went to her matrimonial home but the respondent and his family members did not change their behaviour. On 25.3.2009, the applicant was turned out of the matrimonial home after giving merciless beating. Thereafter, the applicant started living with her parents. As all efforts for reconciliation thereafter remained futile, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar, in which the respondent appeared and engaged counsel. On application for interim maintenance, the court below awarded interim maintenance @ 1,500/- for the applicant and the child. But the same has not been paid by the respondent till date. TA No. 218 of 2010 (2) The applicant lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family members under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Nakodar on 6.5.2010. It was submitted that the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act by the respondent is the counter blast to the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, only to harass the applicant. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant along with a minor child to attend the hearings of the petition filed by the respondent-husband at Kapurthala, being a poor lady, who is living at the mercy of her parents with no source of income. No one is there in the family to accompany her to attend hearings of the case at Kapurthala. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Kapurthala be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Nakodar. 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 TA No. 218 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. 218 of 2010 (4) In the present case, the applicant-wife is residing at village Tut Kalan, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar. Two cases filed by the applicant are pending at Nakodar. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband at Kapurthala thereafter. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife along with his minor child, living at the mercy of her parents, to attend hearings of the petition under Section 9 of the Act at Kapurthala. 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 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala titled as Bhupinder Singh vs Sukhwinder Kaur, deserves to be transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar, on 25.9.2010 for further proceedings. As the respondent remained unrepresented before this Court, the factum regarding the transfer of the petition from Kapurthala to Nakodar 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. 23.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge