NISHA MISHRA Vs. SANDEEP GOGNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant-Wife, by way of present transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks transfer of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'HM Act') filed by the respondent-husband from Nawanshahr (SBS Nagar) to Bathinda. Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, further proceedings before the learned trial Court were stayed. Reply on behalf of the respondent filed in the Court today, is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has gone undisputed before this Court that there is a child out of this wedlock. Applicant-wife, along with her minor child, is living with her parents at Bathinda. Neither the applicant-wife is having any regular source of income nor the respondent-husband is paying any amount of maintenance either for the applicant-wife or for the child. Distance between Bathinda and Nawanshahr (SBS Nagar) is more than 200 kilometers. Although, learned counsel for the respondent could not deny the abovesaid factual aspect of the matter, yet to oppose the instant transfer application, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.K. Nair and another Vs. Kavanugal Aanattu Radhika, 2005 13 SCC 439 and Jitendra Singh Vs. Bhanu Kumari and others, 2009 1 SCC 130 , to contend that it is not always mandatory to accept the transfer applications, filed at the instance of the wife.

(3.) So far as the abovesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, there is no dispute about the observations made therein. However, a close perusal of the cited judgments would show that none of them is of any help to the respondent, these being distinguishable on facts. It is the settled proposition of law that peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of even one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 3 SCC 533 .