Manpreet Kaur v. Arvinder Singh

Present: Mr. M. S. Randhawa, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. ... Prayer in the present application is for transfer of a petition titled as “Arvinder Singh v. Manpreet Kaur” filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage At, 1955 (for short, `the Act') by the respondent-husband from the court of Additional District Judge, Panipat to the court of competent jurisdiction at Narnaul. Service of the 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 Sikh rites at Narnaul on

26.2.2006. No child was born out of the wedlock. After maltreating the applicant on account of insufficient dowry, she was deserted from the matrimonial home. As all the efforts for reconciliation failed, the applicant filed criminal complaint under Sections 406/498-A and 506 IPC and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent, which are pending at Narnaul. Distance from Narnaul to Panipat is more than 200 kilometers. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition filed by the respondent at Panipat, as she has to take somebody along with her to attend the hearings of the case at Panipat. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition filed by the husband at Panipat be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Narnaul. No one had appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing to T.A. No. 211 of 2009 [ 2] 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 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 T.A. No. 211 of 2009 [ 3] proceedings at or near the place where she is residing. In Veena alias Arti v. 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 v. 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 v. Gopal, 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 26, having regard to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, A.I.R. 2002 SC 396 and Neelam Kanwar v. 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 at Narnaul. Two cases filed by the applicant are pending at Narnaul. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband at Panipat. It would certainly be difficult and inconvenient for the wife living at the mercy of her parents to attend hearing of the petition at Panipat. 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, Panipat titled as “Arvinder Singh v. Manpreet Kaur”, deserves to be transferred to Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. Ordered accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul on 25.9.2010 for further proceedings. As the respondent remained unrepresented before this court, the T.A. No. 211 of 2009 [ 4] factum regarding the transfer of the petition from Panipat to Narnaul shall be brought to the notice of the respondent or his counsel by the court concerned at Panipat on the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

23.8.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge