Smt. Preeti v. Rajeev Kumar

Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J **** Prayer in the present application is for transfer of petition, titled as Rajiv Kumar Vs. Smt. Preeti filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955( for short 'the Act') by the respondent-husband from the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division ) Sirsa, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Abohar. 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 at Abohar on 14.10.2002 . Out of the wedlock a female child was born on 29.11.2003. The applicant was turned out of matrimonial home with a female child on 6.8.2009 after giving severe beatings. As all efforts for reconciliation thereafter remained futile, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance on 18.9.1009 and a criminal complaint under Section 406/498- A/376/511 IPC at Abohar on 29.9.2009 against the respondent and his family members which is pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar. As a counter blast to the aforesaid application filed by the applicant, the respondent filed petition under Section 9 of the Act at Sirsa on 3.12.2009. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent-husband at Sirsa, being a poor lady, T.A. No. 67 of 2010 -2- who is living at the mercy of her parents with no source of income. The applicant is not even being paid any maintenance. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be seen. Residence of husband from Abohar is about 60 kilometers, whereas from Sirsa wife is residing at a distance of about 120 KM. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband at Sirsa be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Abohar. 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 and by no means be treated as T.A. No. 67 of 2010 -3- 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 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 T.A. No. 67 of 2010 -4- 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 Abohar. An application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and a criminal complaint under Section 406/498-A/376/511 IPC, which are prior in time are also pending at Abohar in which the proceedings against respondent and his family members are pending. The petition under Section 9 of the Act was subsequently filed by the husband at Sirsa. It would certainly be difficult and in-convenient for the wife living at the mercy of her parents to attend hearing of the divorce petition under Section 9 of the Act at Sirsa. Considering the fact that it is the convenience of the wife which is the paramount consideration, in my opinion, the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the respondent which is pending in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa titled as Rajiv Kumar Vs. Smt. Preeti deserves to be transferred to the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar. Ordered accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Abohar, on 3.8.2010 for further proceedings. As the respondent remained un-represented before this Court at the time of hearing, the factum regarding transfer of the proceedings from the Court at Sirsa to Abohar shall be intimated to the respondent on the next date of hearing fixed at Sirsa. However, in case the date of such hearing is after the date fixed by this Court for appearance at Sirsa, the learned Court below at Abohar shall pre-pone the date of hearing therein and intimate the counsel after issuing notice for the date prior to 3.8.2010. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

13.7.2010. Reema (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE (Refer to Reporter)