SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Uma Devi vs Kuldeep Singh on 3 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 454 of 2018
Date of Decision: 3.01.2019

.

Smt. Uma Devi …..Petitioner

Versus

Kuldeep Singh …..Respondent
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1
Yes.

For the Petitioner r : Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Paras Ram, Advocate vice Mr. B.R.
Kashyap, Advocate

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India read with Section 24 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the

petitioner for transfer of case No.113 of 2018, titled as Sh.

Kuldeep Singh Thakur versus Smt. Uma Devi, pending in

the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.

to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Palampur,

District Kangra, H.P.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 3.02.1993 in the village at

Kangra in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, but fact

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP
2

remains that they were unable to live together for long on

account of certain differences.

.

3. As per the averments contained in the petition,

respondent has filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act ( for shot the ‘Act’) in the Court of learned

District Judge, Shimla , District Shimla , H.P., seeking therein

dissolution of marriage. After having received summons/

notices issued by learned District Judge, Shimla in the

aforesaid petition having been filed by the respondent

(husband), petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings, praying therein to transfer the proceedings from

the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla to the Court of

learned Additional District Judge, Palampur, District Kangra,

H.P., on the grounds of inconvenience, insufficiency of means,

compulsive litigation and on the ground that the distance

between Shimla and Palampur is more than 233 KMs and it is

difficult for her to attend the Court at Shimla, District Shimla,

H.P.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the

parties and perused the material available on record, this

Court has no hesitation to conclude that in the matrimonial

proceedings and other like proceedings, which are the

outcome of matrimonial discord, it is the convenience of the

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP
3

wife which is required to be taken into consideration by the

Court while considering the prayer, if any, made for transfer of

.

the case.

5. In Sumita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay and

another (2001) 10 SCC 41, it was held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that in a case where the wife seeks transfer of

the petition, then as against husband’s convenience, it is the

wife’s convenience which must be looked at.

6. In Soma Choudhury versus Gourab

Choudhaury (2004) 13 SCC 462, it was held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that once the wife alleges that she has no

source of income, whatsoever and was entirely dependent

upon his father, who was a retired government servant, then it

was the convenience of the wife which was required to be

looked into and not that of the husband, who had pleaded a

threat to his life. It was further observed that if the respondent

therein had any threat to his life, he could take police help by

making an appropriate application to this effect.

7. In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi versus Kishor Babulal

Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, in a case seeking transfer of

the case at the instance of the wife, it was specifically held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that convenience of wife was the

prime consideration.

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP
4

8. Similarly, while dealing with the application for transfer

of proceedings in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan

.

Singh versus Kandi Friends Education Trust and others

(2008) 3 SCC 659, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after analyzing the

provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure laid

down certain broad parameters for transfer of cases and it was

held:-

“23. 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 the plaintiff or the

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

9. In Arti Rani alias Pinki Devi and another versus

Dharmendra Kumar Gupta (2008) 9 SCC 353, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the wife had sought

transfer of proceedings on the ground that she was having a minor

child and it was difficult for her to attend the Court at Palamu,

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP
5

Daltonganj, which was in the State of Jharkhand and at a quite

distance from Patna where she was now residing with her child.

.

Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, the

proceedings were ordered to be transferred.

10. Similarly, in Anjali Ashok Sadhwani versus Ashok

Kishinchand Sadhwani AIR 2009 SC 1374, the wife had sought

transfer of the case to Bombay from Indore in Madhya Pradesh on

the ground of inconvenience as there was none in her family to

escort her to Indore and on this ground the proceedings were

ordered to be transferred.

11. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law

that in dispute of the present kind where the petitioner is

compelled to reside at her parental house on account of

matrimonial dispute, it is convenience of the petitioner, which is

required to be considered over and above the inconvenience of the

husband.

12. In the case at hand, bare perusal of the averments

contained in the petition suggest that petitioner is residing at her

matrimonial house at Kangra with her daughter namely Priyanka

@ sonu, who is suffering from permanent disability of 100% and

one son Abhishek, suffering from muscle disorder having

permanent disability of 75% (Annexures P-1 P-2). Both the

children are in the custody of present petitioner, rather they are

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP
6

dependent on her and as such, it would be difficult for her to visit

Shimla time and again to attend the court in connection with

.

divorce petition having been filed by the respondent.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition

is allowed and the case No.113 of 2018 titled as Sh. Kuldeep

Singh Thakur versus Smt. Uma Devi, pending in the Court of

learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. is ordered to be

transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge,

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Record, if any, be sent forthwith.

14. The parties through their respective counsel(s) are

directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge,

Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. on 16.01.2019.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

so also pending application(s), if any.

(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge

3rd January, 2019
(shankar)

07/01/2019 23:01:50 :::HCHP

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