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 contest2 of 4
30-08-2018 16:50:36 :::
TA No.283 of 2018 (OM) 3proceedings 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 :::