Allowed

Tannu Arora v. Madhur Sachdeva

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Apr 2023TA/361/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a Section 9 matrimonial petition from the Pathankot Family Court to the Jalandhar jurisdiction. The court upheld the petitioner-wife's application based on convenience and established Supreme Court precedents, imposing conditions on the respondent regarding maintenance and litigation costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition transferred to a competent court at Jalandhar; record directed to be transferred; parties directed to appear on 29.05.2023.

Tannu Arora Vs Madhur Sachdeva — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:055396

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.361-2023

¶5

Date of decision: 18.04.2023

Tannu Arora

...Pe++oner(s)

Vs.

Madhur Sachdeva ...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶12

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Prayer in this pe��on filed by pe��oner-wife is for transfer of

¶15

pe��on filed by respondent-husband under Sec�on 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 �tled as “Madhur Sachdeva Vs. Tannu” pending in

¶16

the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot, to a Court of competent jurisdic�on at Jalandhar.

¶17

Learned counsel for the pe��oner, inter alia, submits:

¶18

i) that the par�es were married on 28.04.2017 according

¶19

to Hindu rites and rituals;

¶20

ii) that a son was born out of the wedlock on 21.06.2018;

¶21

iii) that the pe��oner along with the child is living at Jalandhar;

¶22

iv) that distance between place of residence and place of

¶23

proceedings is about 140 kms. (one side);

¶24

v) that the pe��oner has no source of income and she is

¶25

living with her old parents.

¶26

SUNENA 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

2023:PHHC:055396

¶28

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the pe��oner.

¶30

The legal posi�on 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 (SC) 627 , is most relevant wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶31

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under sec�on 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of jus�ce should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial ma=ers, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into considera�on the economic soundness of both the par�es, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pa=ern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the par�es in eking out their livelihood and under whose protec�ve 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.

¶32

Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same par�es which raise common ques�on 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 mul�plicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

¶33

Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in

¶34

“Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 , wherein the

¶35

Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer

¶36

SUNENA 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

2023:PHHC:055396

¶38

¶39

applica�on, the Courts are required to give more weightage and considera�on to the convenience of the female li�gants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into considera�on their convenience and the Courts should desist from puCng female li�gants under undue hardships.”

¶40

Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well se=led that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condi�on of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condi�on of the wife, her 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, connec�vity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the li�ga�on charges and travelling expenses.

¶41

AFer going through the en�re paperbook, considering the fact that issuance of no�ce to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the pe��oner-wife will have to bear the li�ga�on expenses and transporta�on expenses and in case, no�ce of mo�on is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the li�ga�on 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

¶42

SUNENA 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

2023:PHHC:055396

¶44

¶45

Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present pe��on, subject to the following condi�ons:-

¶46

a) The pe��on filed by respondent-husband under Sec�on 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 �tled as “Madhur Sachdeva Vs. Tannu” pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot, is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdic�on at Jalandhar.

¶47

b) The learned District Judge, Pathankot is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Jalandhar.

¶48

c) The par�es are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on 29.05.2023.

¶49

d) The District Judge, Jalandhar will assign the said pe��on to the Court of competent jurisdic�on.

¶50

The concerned Court at Jalandhar will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Media�on and Concilia�on Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable se=lement between the par�es.

¶51

The Court concerned, where the li�ga�on pending between the par�es, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month.

¶52

SUNENA 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

2023:PHHC:055396

¶54

¶55

However, liberty is granted to the respondent to revive this

¶56

pe��on, if he intends to contest the same, provided that:-

¶57

(a) The respondent will clear all arrears of maintenance

¶58

amount, if any, in terms of any pe��on filed by the pe��oner either under Sec�on 125 Cr.P.C. or Sec�on 12 of the Domes�c Violence Act or Sec�on 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶59

(b) The respondent will file an affidavit giving undertaking to pay Rs.1,000/- per day, to the pe��oner for a=ending the Court proceedings at District Court, Pathankot on each and every date of hearing.

¶60

(c) The respondent will bring a demand draF of Rs.25,000/-, drawn in favour of pe��oner, towards the li�ga�on expenses to pursue the case at Pathankot in case the respondent opts to contest this pe��on.

¶61

I am supported in the above by decisions rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Ni+n Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶62

As already no�ced above, since the pe��on is being disposed of without issuing no�ce to the respondent, accordingly, in these peculiar circumstances, in order to ensure appearance of the par�es SUNENA before the District Judge, Jalandhar on 29.05.2023, it is directed that a 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

2023:PHHC:055396

¶64

¶65

copy of this order be sent to the respondent(s) through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e-mail. Pe��oner through her counsel, present in the Court, is

¶66

directed to ensure her appearance accordingly.

¶67

Disposed of.

¶68

18.04.2023 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge

¶69

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶70

SUNENA 2023.04.24 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tannu Arora v. Madhur Sachdeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tannu Arora v. Madhur Sachdeva

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

Manpreet Sonia Vs Pankaj

Rajinder Kumar Vs Ram Saroop

Bhavika Vs Arun

Anita Sharma Vs Ravinder Kumar

Jawahar Singh Vs Kamla Devi & Ors.

Gurkiran Kaur Vs Manjinder Singh