SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amarjit Kaur vs Mohinder Singh Teji And Anr on 4 December, 2019

TA-990-2018 -1-


TA-990-2018 (OM)
Date of decision: 04.12.2019

Amarjit Kaur

Mohinder Singh Teji and another


Present: Mr. Nikhil K. Chopra, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1.

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

Applicant Amarjit Kaur, aged about 41 years, estranged wife

of respondent No.1 Mohinder Singh Teji, presently residing with her

parents at Village Sansarpur, Tehsil District Jalandhar, on account of

matrimonial discord between the spouses, by way of filing the present

application, seeks transfer of divorce petition, filed by her husband,

respondent No.1 against her having title ‘Mohinder Singh Vs. Amarjit

Kaur and another’ pending in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana to the

Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

According to the applicant, the marriage solemnized between

the parties in the month of October 1995 did not work, though, the couple

was blessed with three children i.e. daughters Gurpreet Kaur and Rubila

and a son, namely Gurwinder Singh. On account of harassment and

maltreatment meted out to the applicant at the hands of respondent in

1 of 5
08-12-2019 11:29:37 :::
TA-990-2018 -2-

connection with demand of more dowry, the applicant was forced to leave

the matrimonial home and start residing with her parents along with

minor children of the parties. The applicant does not have any source of

income and is dependent upon her parents for meeting her financial needs

and those of minor children of the parties; that respondent No.1 had filed

a petition for divorce at Ludhiana and obtained ex parte decree on

02.04.1997. However, an application was filed by present applicant/wife

for setting aside of that ex parte judgment and decree, which was

dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 14.08.1997. That order was,

however, challenged in the High Court and ex parte judgment and decree

were set aside. Respondent No.1 had filed an appeal before the Apex

Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 12.01.2016.

Respondent No.1 has again filed a divorce petition on false grounds,

which is not maintainable, since the controversy has already been decided

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The applicant has filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. besides a complaint under Sections 498-A, Section494 etc.

SectionIPC against the respondent in Courts at Jalandhar. Under the

circumstances, it is difficult for her to travel from her parental place to

Ludhiana, to attend the dates of hearing in the Court there. Therefore, the

present application be accepted.

Notice of the application was given to the respondent who

put in appearance through counsel, filed written reply and is opposing the

application vehemently, contending that the second divorce petition has

been filed on the ground of adultery and respondent is suffering from

2 of 5
08-12-2019 11:29:37 :::
TA-990-2018 -3-

serious heart ailment, as such, unable to travel from Ludhiana to

Jalandhar. He has drawn my attention to the supporting documents in that


I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

The Apex Court in various judgments has observed that in

matrimonial disputes between the spouses convenience of wife should be

looked into. In that regard a reference can be made to authority Sumita

Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 396 by a

Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav Versus Ravibhai Govindbhai

Rav, 2017(3) RCR(Civil) 369, the Apex Court had allowed application

for transfer of the divorce petition to a place where the wife was residing

considering various factors including the distance between the place

where the wife was residing and the place of sitting of the Court where

divorce petition had been instituted and the fact that the wife had filed

two cases against her husband in the Court at the place of her residence

wherein the respondent had already put in appearance.

In Apurva Versus Navtej Singh, 2017(2) Law Herald 966

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was observed that wherever the

Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer in matrimonial

disputes, the Courts have to take into consideration various factors like

economic soundness of either of the parties, the social strata of the

spouses to which they belong and behavioural pattern, standard of life

3 of 5
08-12-2019 11:29:37 :::
TA-990-2018 -4-

antecedents of marriage. Generally it is the wife’s convenience, which

must be looked at by the Courts while deciding the transfer application.

Earlier also, on an application having been filed by wife, the

divorce petition filed by the respondent as well as petition seeking

custody of the children had been transferred by this Court to Courts of

competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The first divorce petition filed by

respondent/husband has since been dismissed. He has started a second

round of litigation. The applicant is taking care of children of the parties.

She is not shown to have enough resources at her command for going

from Jalandhar to Ludhiana. She being a middle aged woman, it would be

difficult for her to undertake the journeys quite often to attend the dates

of hearing in Court at Ludhiana. The medical documents attached relates

to the year 2007 and 2015. As has been stated by learned counsel for the

applicant, he is appearing in two cases at Jalandhar, therefore, if we seen,

comparative inconvenience is much more to the wife, if she is asked to go

to Ludhiana quite frequently to attend the dates of hearing in a Court

there, spending money from her pocket, more particularly, when she has

got financial constraints and is looking after children of the parties, than

the inconvenience caused to the respondent.

Keeping in view the contentions in the application and

submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, in which I find

merit, in absence of any strong circumstance to the contrary, it would be

proper and appropriate, if the application is accepted. The same is

accordingly allowed. The petition in question is ordered to be withdrawn

4 of 5
08-12-2019 11:29:37 :::
TA-990-2018 -5-

from the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana and transferred to Family

Court at Jalandhar for disposal in accordance with law.

The parties through counsel are directed to appear in the

transferee Court on 09.01.2020. Copies of orders be sent to both the

Courts for information and necessary compliance.

04.12.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

5 of 5
08-12-2019 11:29:37 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation