Allowed

Heena Sharma v. Karandeep

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2023TA/517/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer application seeking to move a divorce petition from Amloh to Ropar. The court emphasized the wife's convenience, financial dependence, and physical health, citing Supreme Court precedents. Proceedings were transferred without issuance of notice, subject to costs and conditions if the husband contests.

What did the court decide?

The petition filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was transferred to Ropar along with the complete record.

Heena Sharma Vs Karandeep — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:060383 1 105

¶2

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Transfer Application No. 517 of 2023 Date of decision: 26.04.2023

Heena Sharma

……….Petitioner

Karandeep

………..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Kanhiya Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

NIDHI GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

Prayer in this petition filed by petitioner-wife is for transfer of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Karandeep vs. Heena Sharma” pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar (Rupnagar).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits :-

¶15

i) That the parties were married on 05.2.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals.

¶16

ii) That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who is around 8 years of age, school going and is in the care and custody of the petitioner.

¶17

iii) That the petitioner-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband and living with her old aged father, who is having various ailments being heart patient, at his

¶18

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

2023:PHHC:060383 2 105

¶20

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶21

mercy at Village Morinda, District Ropar. Her mother is no more.

¶22

iv) That the petitioner is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents and the respondent-husband is not paying anything to her towards maintenance.

¶23

v) That the proceedings arising out of petitions :-

¶24

(a) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

¶25

(b) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; and

¶26

(c) criminal complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for issuing direction to the SHO concerned to register a FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the respondent,

¶27

filed by the petitioner-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Ropar (Rupnagar).

¶28

vi) That the distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Village Morinda, District Ropar (Rupnagar) and the place of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, is about 60 kilometers one side.

¶29

vii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of petitioner who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib because father of the petitioner is an old aged person and heart patient, is having various ailments and mother of the petitioner has already expired.

¶30

It is inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for

¶31

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

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, the legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In

¶34

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

2023:PHHC:060383 3 105

¶36

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶37

this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law

¶38

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

¶39

“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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “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

¶43

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

2023:PHHC:060383 105

¶45

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶46

¶47

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 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.

¶48

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:-

¶49

a) The petition filed by respondent husband under Section 13 of Act, bearing No. DMC/45/2022 titled as ‘Karandeep vs. Heena Sharma’, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Ropar (Rupnagar).

¶50

b) The ld. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Ropar (Rupnagar).

¶51

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

2023:PHHC:060383 105

¶53

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶54

¶55

c) The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Ropar (Rupnagar) on 25.5.2023.

¶56

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

¶57

The concerned Court at Ropar (Rupnagar) 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.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

(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.

¶61

(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 Courts, Fatehgarh Sahib on each and every date of hearing.

¶62

(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 Fatehgarh Sahib in case the respondent opts to contest this petition.

¶63

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

¶64

Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin

¶65

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶66

2023:PHHC:060383 105

¶67

T.A.No. 517 of 2023 (O&M)

¶68

¶69

Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh.

¶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, Ropar (Rupnagar) on 25.5.2023, 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

April 26, 2023 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned YES/NO Whether Reportable YES/NO

¶74

VIJAY ASIJA 2023.04.29 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Heena Sharma v. Karandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heena Sharma v. Karandeep

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

Icici Bank Vs Harcharan Singh and Anr.

Tahir Vs Naveen Sharma and Another

Sukhwant Kaur Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.

Najrana and Others Vs Virender Singh and Others

Pehlad Singh and Others Vs Anil Kumar and Others

Ashok Rani and Another Vs Seema