Allowed

Santosh Kumari v. Ravi

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2023TA/337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a pending Section 13(1) Hindu Marriage Act divorce petition from Gohana to Rohtak based on the petitioner-wife's convenience, custody of the minor child, and economic factors. The transfer was granted without issuing a notice to stay proceedings to avoid litigation expenses for the wife, subject to future conditions if the husband contests.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the Section 13(1) Hindu Marriage Act petition from Gohana to Rohtak; directions for record transfer and future appearance; liberty to contest subject to maintenance clearances and payment

Santosh Kumari Vs Ravi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:043700 103

¶2

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Transfer Application No. 337 of 2023 Date of decision:-17.03.2023

Santosh Kumari

……….Petitioner

Ravi

………..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶12

Present:Ms. Ojaswini, Advocate for Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Ravi vs. Santosh Kumari” pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat Camp Court at Gohana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits :-

¶16

i) That the parties were married on 19.4.2010 according to Hindu rites and rituals.

¶17

ii) That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who is around 11 years of age and is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

2023:PHHC:043700 103

¶20

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband at Gurunanakpura, Near Gohana Adda at Rohtak.

¶23

iv) That the petitioner is working in a private School i.e. Scholar Rosary School near Jagmohan Motors, Sonepat Road, Rohtak and the respondent-husband is not paying anything to her and the minor children towards maintenance.

¶24

v) That the respondent-husband has filed the petition under Section 13(1) of the Act, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana.

¶25

vi) That the proceedings arising out of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Rohtak.

¶26

vii) That the distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Rohtak and the place of proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Act, filed by the respondenthusband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana, is about 40 kilometers one side.

¶27

viii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of petitioner who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana.

¶28

It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for

¶29

transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, the legal

¶32

position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law

¶33

(SC) 627 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶34

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

2023:PHHC:043700 103

¶36

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶37

¶38

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶39

Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

¶40

Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in

¶41

“Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.”

¶42

Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her

¶43

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

2023:PHHC:043700

¶45

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶46

103

¶47

¶48

physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses.

¶49

After going through the entire paper-book, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:-

¶50

a) The petition filed by respondent husband under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955, bearing No. DMC/29/2022 titled as ‘Ravi vs. Santosh Kumari’, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak.

¶51

b) The ld. District Judge, Sonepat is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Rohtak

¶52

c) The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 20.4.2023.

¶53

d) The District Judge, Rohtak will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶54

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

2023:PHHC:043700 103

¶56

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶57

¶58

The concerned Court at Rohtak will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties.

¶59

The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.

¶60

However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this petition, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-

¶61

(a) The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance amount, if any, in terms of any petition filed by the petitioner either under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act or Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶62

(b) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the petitioner for attending the Court proceedings at District Court, Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana on each and every date of hearing.

¶63

(c) The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/-, drawn in favour of petitioner, towards the litigation expenses to pursue the case at District Sonepat Camp Court at Gohana in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.

¶64

I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co-ordinate

¶65

Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶66

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

2023:PHHC:043700 103

¶68

T.A.No. 337 of 2023 (O&M)

¶69

¶70

As already noticed above, since the petition is being disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent, accordingly, in these peculiar circumstances, in order to ensure appearance of the parties before the District Judge, Rohtak on 20.4.2023, it is directed that a copy of this order be sent to the respondent through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e-mail. Petitioner through her counsel, present in the Court, is directed to ensure her appearance accordingly.

¶71

Disposed of.

¶72

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶73

March 17, 2023		( NIDHI GUPTA )
Vijay Asija		JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	YES/NO
Whether Reportable	YES/NO

¶74

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.03.24 12:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Santosh Kumari v. Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari v. Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Sharma Vs Avtar Singh and Others

Neha Patney Kapoor Vs Dheeraj Kapoor

Shakuntala and Ors. Vs Sandeep and Ors.

Davinder Kaur Vs Avtar Kaur and Ors.

Surender Kumar Vs Municipal Council and Ors.

Jyoti Bala Vs Ravinder Kumar