The High Court transferred a petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Paonta Sahib to Solan, noting the wife's residence with her aged mother and unemployment made attending proceedings difficult.
Transfer of HMA No.123 of 2023 from Family Court, Paonta Sahib to Family Court, Solan.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.473 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.09.2024 Mala Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus Hitesh Kumar. ...Respondent. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioner is wife of respondent and has moved this petition Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of petition preferred by respondent under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing HMA No.123 of 2023 (Hitesh Kumar vs. Mala Devi) from the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (H.P.) to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan (H.P).
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
-2-
parties become sour. Ffrom the beginning of year 2021, the petitioner has been residing with her parents in Solan.
Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the allegations levelled by the petitioner regarding atrocities committed upon her by the respondent.
-3-
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another1 ; Soma Choudhury Versus Gourab Choudhaury2 ; Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishor Babulal Pardeshi3 ; Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another Versus Dharmendra Kumar Gupta4 ; and Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Versus Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani5 , has held that it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at in a case where she seeks transfer of the petition. In Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh versus Kandi Friends Education Trust and others6 ,
following parameters for transfer of cases were outlined:-
“23. 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 the plaintiff or the 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
1 (2001) 10 SCC 41
2 (2004) 13 SCC 462
3 (2005) 12 SCC 237
4 (2008) 9 SCC 353
5 AIR 2009 SC 1374
6 (2008) 3 SCC 659
-4-
in which the suit is pending; important question 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 proceeding. 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.”
In Krishna Veni Nagam Versus Harish Nagam7 ,
another trend where instead of transferring the proceedings at the convenience of wife, the husband’s paying travel, lodging and boarding expenses of wife and/or persons accompanying for each hearing was noticed and considered. It was observed as under:-
“14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husband may find it difficult to contest proceedings at a place which is convenient to the wife. Thus, transfer is not always a solution acceptable to both the parties. It may be appropriate that available technology of videoconferencing is used where both the parties have equal difficulty and there is no place which is convenient to both the parties. We understand that in every district in the country videoconferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be
7 (2017) 4 SCC 150
-5-
fully utilised and all the High Courts ought to issue appropriate administrative instructions to regulate the use of videoconferencing for certain category of cases. Matrimonial cases where one of the parties resides outside court’s jurisdiction is one of such categories. Wherever one or both the parties make a request for use of videoconferencing, proceedings may be conducted on videoconferencing, obviating the needs of the party to appear in person. In several cases, this Court has directed recording of evidence by videoconferencing.
18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:
(i) Availability of videoconferencing facility.
(ii) Availability of legal aid service.
(iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order 25 CPC.
(iv) E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from outstation may communicate.”
-6-
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ( supra ) the petitioner has made out a case for transfer of the petition. Accordingly, HMA No.123 of 2023 (Hitesh Kumar vs. Mala Devi) preferred by the respondent before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (H.P.) is ordered to be transferred to the Court of learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan (H.P).
Registry is directed to convey this order forthwith to the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (H.P.) as well as the learned Principal Judge (Family Court), Solan (H.P) for compliance. Learned Family Court, Paonta Sahib is directed to transfer the record pertaining to above numbered petition forthwith to the learned Family Court, Solan. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to remain present before the learned Family Court, Solan on 18.10.2024. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
12th September, 2024
(Pardeep)
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings should be granted transfer for her convenience?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and anotherReferred¶12
(2001) 10 SCC 41 · Who else cites this
Soma Choudhury Versus Gourab ChoudhauryReferred¶12
(2004) 13 SCC 462 · Who else cites this
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishor Babulal PardeshiReferred¶12
(2005) 12 SCC 237 · Who else cites this
Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another Versus Dharmendra Kumar GuptaReferred¶12
(2008) 9 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Versus Ashok Kishinchand SadhwaniReferred¶12
AIR 2009 SC 1374 · Who else cites this
Krishna Veni Nagam Versus Harish NagamReferred¶23
(2017) 4 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mala Devi
Hitesh Kumar
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
