SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manoj Kumar vs Preeti Walia on 29 March, 2017

TA No.77 of 2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

TA No.77 of 2017
Date of decision: 29.03.2017
Manoj Kumar
… Applicant
Vs.
Preeti Walia
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate
for the applicant.

Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.

*******

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)

Applicant-husband, by way of instant transfer application under

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

divorce petition titled as Preeti Walia Vs. Manoj Kumar filed by respondent-

wife from Patiala to Chandigarh.

Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, learned Court

below was directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed before this

Court.

Reply filed on behalf of the respondent-wife in the Court today,

is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for

the applicant-husband.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It has gone undisputed before this Court that the respondent-wife

is serving in a private concern at Chandigarh. There is no child out of this

marriage. In this view of the undisputed fact situation, it would be in the

1 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:46 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -2-

interest of respondent-wife herself, if her divorce petition is ordered to be

transferred from Patiala to Chandigarh, so as to avoid unwarranted harassment

to both the parties.

In view of the abovesaid undisputed fact situation of the case, this

Court feels no hesitation to conclude that it is just and expedient to transfer the

abovesaid petition from Patiala to Chandigarh. It is so said because all the

abovesaid undisputed facts clearly go in favour of the applicant and against

the respondent.

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 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.

The view taken by this Court also finds support from a judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs.

Ramakrishna Hegde, 1990 (1) SCC 4. The relevant observations made by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy’s case (supra),

which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read 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

2 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -3-

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)”

Reverting to the facts of the case in hand and respectfully

following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.

Subramaniam Swamy’s case (supra), it is unhesitatingly held that applicant

is entitled for getting the abovesaid petition transferred from Patiala to

Chandigarh, so as to avoid unwarranted harassment to both the parties. It is

3 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::
TA No.77 of 2017 -4-

the settled principle of law that justice is not only to be done but it should also

appear to have been done. 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 abovesaid petition from Patiala to Chandigarh.

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. Divorce petition titled as Preeti Walia Vs. Manoj

Kumar filed by the respondent-wife is ordered to be transferred from Patiala

to Chandigarh.

Accordingly, the learned District Judge, Patiala is directed to send

complete record of the abovesaid petition to the learned District Judge,

Chandigarh 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, Chandigarh 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 abovesaid observations made and directions issued,

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

costs.

[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ]
29.03.2017 JUDGE
vishnu

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
08-04-2017 19:56:47 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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