T.A. No.

242 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 242 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.7.2010. Sangeeta Paul Aggarwal Versus Raman Kumar Aggarwal ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J Prayer in the present application is for transfer of divorce petition, titled as Raman Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Sangeeta Paul Aggarwal, filed under ....Applicant

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') by the respondent-husband from the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnised with the respondent according to Hindu rites at

Ludhiana on 30.1.1990. Out of the wedlock, two children were born and they are staying with applicant. Divorce petition was filed by the respondent in December 2008 which is fixed for evidence of applicant-wife. As all efforts for reconciliation thereafter remained futile, the applicant filed an application for grant of maintenance at Patiala and application under Sections 12, 18 and 20 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DV Act') against the respondent in April 2009 at Patiala. It is further submitted that the applicant is working as a Medical Officer in ESI Hospital at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The submission is that it is difficult for the applicant to attend the hearings of the divorce petition filed by the respondenthusband at Rupnager, being working and living with two children. The applicant is living at Patiala and she has to come to Mandi Gobindgarh to attend the hospital and thereafter to go back to Patiala to take care of her minor children.

T.A. No. 242 of 2010

The applicant is also apprehending threat from the respondent as he is an influential man and it is difficult for her to bring the witnesses in the Court in his presence. It is the convenience of the wife, which is to be seen. Considering the aforesaid facts, the divorce petition filed by the husband at Rupnagar be transferred to the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Patiala. On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant is working as a Medical Officer in ESI Hospital at Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib which is 50 kilometer from Patiala. The applicant had initially put in appearance in the divorce petition before Additional District Judge, Rupnagar on 22.12.2008 and is appearing regularly thereafter. The case is nearing completion. From the zimini orders produced on record it is clear that the applicant is also being paid maintenance. It is further submitted that the witnesses sought to be examined by her hail from Rupnagar. The applicant herself appeared in the witness box on 13.5.2010 and she was partly cross-examined. Considering the aforesaid facts, the application for

transfer of the divorce petition now filed is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue regarding transfer of case from one Court to another has been discussed by Courts in numerous judgments. In Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others, 2008 (3) SCC 659, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain parameters to be considered for the purpose, while opining that the same cannot be treated as exhaustive but illustrative in nature. The relevant Para-14 thereof is extracted hereunder: Although the discretionary power of transfer of cases cannot be imprisoned within a straitjacket of any cast-iron formula unanimously applicable to all situations, it cannot be gainsaid that the power to transfer a case must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection. 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

T.A. No. 242 of 2010

3 Courts. They are balance of convenience or inconvenience to plaintiff or 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 proceedings. 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."

From the facts noticed above it can be opined that the petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of divorce petition from Rupnagar to Patiala is highly belated. Admittedly the same was filed in December 2008. All

proceedings initiated by the wife at Patiala were subsequent in time. Even otherwise, the divorce proceedings in the Court at Patiala is nearing completion. Now the applicant has even been partly cross-examined. Further the applicant

herself is claiming that though she is living at Patiala but serving at Mandi Gobindgarh. That means she is regularly travelling from Patiala to Mandi

Gobindgarh which is stated to be about 50 kilometers. Rupnagar is not far off from Patiala and the same was also stated to be 65 kilometers. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any reason to direct the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent at Rupnagar to the Court at Patiala. The application is accordingly dismissed.

22.7.2010
Reema

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE