SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Armeen vs Mohan Deep Singh on 15 March, 2017

TA No. 868 of 2016 1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

TA No. 868 of 2016
Date of decision: 15.3.2017

Armeen
…Applicant

Versus

Mohan Deep Singh

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate
for the applicant.

Mr. Mohandeep, Advocate
for the respondent.

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

Applicant, by way of instant transfer application under Section

24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), seeks transfer of the

petition under Section 13 (i) (a) 13 (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 (‘the Act’ for short) titled as Mohan Deep Singh Vs. Armeen, filed by

respondent husband from Fatehabad to Bathinda.

Notice of motion was issued and learned trial court was directed

to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It has gone undisputed between the parties that the applicant-

wife is staying with her widowed mother at Bathinda. Respondent-husband

is not paying any amount of maintenance to the applicant. Since applicant-

wife is not having any regular source of income, she is dependent on her

mother. Distance between Fatehabad and Bathinda is more than 100 Kms.

1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:30:59 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 2

Other litigation between the parties, at the instance of the applicant-wife, are

also pending at Bathinda.

The only contention raised by learned counsel for the

respondent-husband that instead of transferring the divorce petition from

Fatehabad to Bathinda, it may be transferred to Mansa, has been duly

considered but not found worth acceptance.

After giving anxious consideration to the contentions raised and

careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered

opinion that instant one has been found to be a fit case for ordering the

transfer of petition under Section 13 (i) (a) 13 (i) (b) of the Act from

Fatehabad to Bathinda. It is so said because all the abovesaid undisputed

facts clearly go in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent-

husband. In the circumstances of the case, it will not only be inconvenient

but would be very difficult for the applicant-wife to go from Bathinda to

Fatehabad, to pursue the litigation imposed on her by the respondent-

husband. Convenience of the wife in transfer applications, like the present

one, arising out of a matrimonial dispute, is one of the relevant

considerations. Further, distance between the two places, financial status of

the wife, her source of income, as well as her age are the relevant factors to

be considered, while deciding the transfer applications like the present one.

The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of

the Civil Procedure Code is that the ends of justice demand the transfer of

the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever the

Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to

take into consideration the economic soundness of either of the parties, the

social strata of the spouses and behavioural pattern, their standard of life

2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 3

antecedent to marriage and subsequent thereto and circumstances of either of

the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella

they are seeking their sustenance to life. Generally, it is the wife’s

convenience which must be looked at by the Courts, while deciding a

transfer application.

The view taken by this Court also finds support from the

following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as different

High Courts, including this Court: –

1. Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and another Vs. Miss Rani
Jethmalani, AIR 1979 (SC) 468.

2. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990
(1) SCC 4.

3. Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2000 (10)
SCC 589.

4. Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002
(SC) 396.

5. Mangla Patil Kale Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Kale, 2003 (10) SCC

280.

6. Fatema Vs. Jafri Syed Husain @ Syed Parvez Jafferi, AIR
2009 (SC) 1773.

7. Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani,
AIR 2009 (SC) 1374.

8. Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi
Friends Education Trust and others, AIR 2008 SC 1333.

9. Nisha Vs. Dharmenda Pratap Singh Rathore, 2015 (3) All.
LJ 168.

10. M.V. Rekha Vs. Sathya, 2011 (2) HLR 34.

11. Sneha Vs. Vinayak, 2013 ILR (Karnataka) 165.

3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 4

12. Rimpal Vs. Balinder Kumar, 2010 (7) RCR (Civil) 286.

13. Anju Vs. Sanjay, 2011 (6) RCR (Civil) 112.

14. Komal Devi @ Komal Kumari @ Komal Rani Vs.
Harbhajan Singh, 2012 (8) RCR (Civil) 84.

The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in para 14 of its judgment in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan

Singh’s case (supra), which can be gainfully followed in the present case,

read as under: –

“Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot
be imprisoned within a strait-jacket of any cast-iron formula
unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid
that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due
care, caution and circumspection. 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 plaintiff
or 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 in which the suit is pending;
important questions 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

4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 5

which he seeks to transfer a case, it is not only the power, but
the duty of the Court to make such order.”

Again, deliberating on an identical issue, in the case of

Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as

under: –

“The question of expediency would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case but the paramount consideration
for the exercise of power must be to meet the ends of justice. It
is true that if more than one court has jurisdiction under the
Code to try the suit, the plaintiff as dominus litis has a right to
choose the Court and the defendant cannot demand that the suit
be tried in any particular court convenient to him. The mere
convenience of the parties or any one of them may not be
enough for the exercise of power but it must also be shown that
trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Cases
are not unknown where a party seeking justice chooses a forum
most inconvenient to the adversary with a view to depriving
that party of a fair trial. The Parliament has, therefore,
invested this Court with the discretion to transfer the case from
one Court to another if that is considered expedient to meet the
ends of justice. Words of wide amplitude- for the ends of
justice- have been advisedly used to leave the matter to the
discretion of the apex court as it is not possible to conceive of
all situations requiring or justifying the exercise of power. But
the paramount consideration must be to see that justice
according to law is done; if for achieving that objective the
transfer of the case is imperative, there should be no hesitation
to transfer the case even if it is likely to cause some
inconvenience to the plaintiff. The petitioner’s plea for the
transfer of the case must be tested on this touchstone.

(emphasis supplied)”

The above-said law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme has also been

5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 6

followed by this Court in order dated 16.03.2016 passed in TA No.945 of

2015 (Sushma and others Vs. Kapil @ Sahil Bansal) and TA No.797 of 2015

(Jagroop Kaur Vs.Varinder Singh Bhela @ Tony) which, in turn, were based

on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well as different High

Courts, including this Court.

Reverting to the facts of the case in hand and respectfully

following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as

different High Courts, including this Court, it is unhesitatingly held that

applicant-wife is entitled for getting the petition under Section 13 (i) (a)

13 (i) (b) of the Act transferred from Fatehabad to Bathinda, so as to enable

her to pursue the litigation without facing any undue hardship or harassment

at the hands of the respondent-husband. It is the settled principle of law that

justice is not only to be done but it should also appear to have been done. If

the applicant wife is forced to go from Bathinda to Fatehabad, it would

amount to denial of justice to her. Thus, to strike a balance between the

parties with a view to do complete and substantial justice and proceeding on

a holistic view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that it

would be just and expedient to transfer the petition under Section 13 (i) (a)

13 (i) (b) of the Act from Fatehabad to Bathinda.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered view that instant transfer application deserves to be accepted and

the same is hereby allowed. Petition under Section 13 of the HM Act filed

by the respondent husband is ordered to be transferred from Fatehabad to

Bathinda.

6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
TA No. 868 of 2016 7

Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Fatehabad, is directed

to send complete record of the above-said petition to the learned District

Judge, Bathinda, at an early date but in any case within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The learned District Judge, Bathinda, is also directed either to

decide the case himself or assign it to the learned court of competent

jurisdiction, for an early decision, in accordance with law.

With the above-said observations made and directions issued,

present transfer application stands disposed of, however, with no order as to

costs.

15.3.2017                               (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
AK Sharma                                       JUDGE

             Whether Speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
             Whether Reportable               :      Yes/No




                               7 of 7
            ::: Downloaded on - 19-03-2017 22:31:00 :::
 

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