SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Reetu vs Mandeep on 29 November, 2019

T.A. No. 451 of 2019 (OM) 1


T.A. No. 451 of 2019 (OM)
DATE OF DECISION :- November 29, 2019

Reetu …Applicant


Mandeep …Respondent


Present:- Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the respondent.


Applicant Reetu, aged about 24 years, estranged wife of

Mandeep-respondent, presently residing with her parents at Jind on account

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

application seeks transfer of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act filed by her husband Mandeep against her having title

‘Mandeep Vs. Ritu’ pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,

Rohtak to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jind.

According to the applicant, the marriage performed between the

parties on 11.11.2016 ran into rough weather though the couple was not

blessed with any child. On account of demand of more dowry by respondent

and his family members, she had to leave the matrimonial home and start

residing with her parents. The applicant has filed petition under Section 125

Section1 of 3
08-12-2019 10:44:35 :::
T.A. No. 451 of 2019 (OM) 2

SectionCr.P.C. against the respondent for maintenance. She has also lodged an

F.I.R. No. 115 dated 12.6.2018 under Sections 323, Section498A, Section506, Section354A, Section406,

Section34 IPC in Women Police Station, Jind. She does not have any source of

income and is dependent upon her parents. It is difficult for her to travel

from to Jind to Rohtak covering a distance of 70 kms on one side so as to

attend the dates of hearing in the Court there, therefore, the application be


Notice of the application was given to the respondent, who has

put in appearance through counsel by filing written reply and is vehemently

opposing the application.

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


2 of 3
08-12-2019 10:44:36 :::
T.A. No. 451 of 2019 (OM) 3

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 antecedents of marriage. Generally it is the

wife’s convenience, which must be looked at by the Courts while deciding the

transfer application.

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 from the Court of Principal

Judge, Family Court, Rohtak and transferred to Family Court at Jind for

disposal in accordance with law.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the

transferee Court on 20.12.2019. Copies of orders be sent to the Court of

Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak as well as to the Family Court at Jind

for information and necessary compliance.

November 29, 2019

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
08-12-2019 10:44:36 :::

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
MyNation Times Magzine

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


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