PRABHJOT KAUR Vs. PREET KAMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the Family Court, Ludhiana to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Panipat. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is residing with a minor daughter at Panipat, however, the respondent-husband has filed the present petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Ludhiana in order to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is facing great difficulty in prosecuting the said case, as there is a distance of about 240 Kms between the aforesaid two places. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:114904 observed that 'while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships."

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

(3.) It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider family condition of the wife, custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important, convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the petitioner-wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in view of the fact that in case notice of motion is issued, even the respondent/husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in also in view of the judgments rendered in Sumita Singh's case, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi's case as well as N.C.V. Aishwarya's case (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, with the following directions:-