In TA 173 of 2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC denies wife’s plea seeking transfer of Sec.9 HMA petition from Family Court in Bathinda to Faridkot on ground that both towns are interconnected and all types of conveyance facilities are available Justice Fateh Deed Singh [26-05-2022]

Read Order: Manpreet Kaur v. Gurbaksh Singh

Monika Rahar

Chandugarh, June 1, 2022: While dealing with a transfer petition filed by the wife in a matrimonial matter involving petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea and held that the distance of sixty kilometers between Bathinda (from where transfer is sought) and Faridkot (where transfer is sought) was small.

Moreover, the Court added that both the towns were adjoining and interconnected by the well metalled road with all types of conveyance and facilities being available, thus making the  making the petitioner’s plea about her inability to look after case due to the distance between these places, a preposterous preposition.

Justice Fateh Deed Singh added, “Being a civil matter where presence of the applicant is not required and that the husband is trying to seek restoration of his rights of matrimonial relationship and the wife is trying to evade her obligations rather goes against the very conduct of the wife. The applicant wife can appropriately instruct her counsel whenever her presence is not essential and therefore mere such a small distance is no overwhelming reason for this Court to order transfer of the matter.”

The Court was dealing with a transfer petition by a wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending between the parties to this application in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda Camp at Phul to the Court of competent jurisdiction at District Courts, Faridkot.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on July 15, 2012 and subsequently the couple fell apart leading to matrimonial dispute and filing of litigations against each other. 

The case of the petitioner-wife in favour of transfer of the matter was that she was unable to look after the case and thus, there was a likelihood of her not getting a just decision on the Section 9 HMA petition. 

The above-mentioned contentions were strongly controverted by the counsel for respondent who argued that the distance between Faridkot to Bathinda is approximately 60 kilometers and these two places are adjoining districts. 

The Court found substance in the case of the respondent-husband. Justice Singh was of the view that both the towns adjoin each other and are interconnected by the well metalled road with all types of conveyance and facilities being available and thus, the Court opined that it was a preposterous preposition that petitioner might not be able to look after her proceedings. 

Further, the Bench opined that this matter was civil in nature, thus the presence of the applicant was not required. Additionally, it was observed that the husband was trying to seek restoration of his rights of matrimonial relationship, while the wife was trying to evade her obligations, showing negativity around the conduct of the wife. 

The Court added that the applicant wife can appropriately instruct her counsel whenever her presence is not essential and therefore mere such a small distance is no overwhelming reason for the Court to order transfer of the matter. 

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.