TA No.283 of 2018 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217

TA No.283 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision:- 23.08.2018

Mamta Rani @ Raman Deniwal
…..Petitioner
V/S

Jatinder Kumar
…….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

Present:- Mr.Achin Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner

Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU J.

This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civl Procedure

has been filed by the petitioner for transfer of the case filed by the

respondent-her husband titled as “Jatinder Kumar Vs. Mamta Rani @

Raman Deniwal” under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

from the court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad to

Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was

solemnized on 23.11.2011 at Village Mallan Wala Khas, District

Ferozepur. They have two children namely, Ketan and Aksh, who are now

aged about 6 and 3 years respectively. It is stated that the older son Ketan is

living with the respondent whereas younger son, Aksh is living with the

petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she was turned out of her

matrimonial home in the month of January, 2018. Since then, she is living

1 of 4
30-08-2018 16:50:36 :::
TA No.283 of 2018 (OM) 2

with her parents along with her minor child at Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

The petitioner is unemployed and is wholly dependent upon her parents.

The petitioner has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending

before the Court at Faridkot. The respondent has put in appearance in that

case. It is stated that Faridabad where the respondent instituted the petition

for divorce is at a distance of about 420 kms from the place of residence of

the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult for the

petitioner to attend the court proceedings at Faridabad. Hence, the prayer

for transfer.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has urged

that there is no justification for transfer of the petition. He states that the

respondent is serving in the Army and is presently posted at Delhi. He states

that it would be very difficult for him to attend the court proceedings at

Faridkot as the leave application for one or two days is usually not

sanctioned by the Army. He further states that the witnesses in the divorce

petition are residents of New Delhi and it would be difficult for them to

appear before the court at Faridkot.

He has referred to the judgment and order of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in case Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam (Transfer

Petition (Civil) No.1912 of 2014).

In this judgment the Supreme Court issued certain directions which may

provide alternative to seeking transfer of proceedings on account of inability

of a party to contest proceedings at a place away from their ordinary place

of residence. The relevant observations of the Court are:

“17. We are thus of the view that it is necessary to issue certain
directions which may provide alternative to seeking transfer of
proceedings on account of inability of a party to contest

2 of 4
30-08-2018 16:50:36 :::
TA No.283 of 2018 (OM) 3

proceedings at a place away from their ordinary residence on
the ground that if proceedings are not transferred it will result
in denial justice.

18. We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or
in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of
disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the
defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of
the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may
examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate
any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of
defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order
incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the
summons. The safeguards can be :-

i) Availability of video conferencing facility.

ii) Availability of legal aid service

iii)Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms
of Order XXV CPC.

iv)E-mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant
from out station may communicate.”

In this judgment it has been directed that in order to obviate

the difficulty to the parties, the court may examine whether it is in the

interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that

summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of

justice and one of the safeguards could be the use of video

conferencing facility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further

observed that in matrimonial cases where one or both the parties

make a request for use of video conference, proceedings may be

conducted on video conferencing, obviating the need of the party to

appear in person.

The facility of Video conferencing may take care of the apprehension

of the respondent that the witnesses may not be willing to attend the court

proceedings at Faridkot.

In view thereof and considering the facts and circumstance of

the case, it may be in the interest of justice that petition under Section 9 of

3 of 4
30-08-2018 16:50:36 :::
TA No.283 of 2018 (OM) 4

the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent be transferred from

Faridabad to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The petition under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 titled as “Jatinder Kumar Vs.

Mamta Rani @ Raman Deniwal” pending in the Court of Additional

Principal Judge, family Court, Faridabad is withdrawn from that court and

transferred to Faridkot. The learned District Judge, Faridkot may assign it

to a competent court at Faridkot.

On a request being made, the transferee court may consider to

conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the respondent and such

other witnesses of the parties as are unable to appear in Court by way of

video conferencing.

(Harinder Singh Sidhu)
Judge
23.08.2018
sd
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4
30-08-2018 16:50:36 :::