Read Order: Rinky Rani v. Daljit Kumar

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, April 20, 2022: While dismisng wife’s plea for transfer of matrimonial case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in this modern era, there is a clamour for equity of sexes and merely because the applicant is a wife, the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting towards the fairer sex. 

The Bench of Justice Fateh Deep Singh also held, “The wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs…”.  

The petitioner-wife and her husband had matrimonial disputes and resultantly, the wife (a resident of Nabha in District Patiala) moved a complaint against her husband before the police at Patiala, however, soon the parties resolved their differences. 

Later, the parties again fell apart leading to the husband instituting a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. This petition is pending before the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar. Thus, the wife approached the High Court with a transfer plea, seeking transfer of the matter from Amritsar to Patiala. 

The Court observed at the very outset that the two daughters born out of wedlock were residing with the petitioner-wife who was residing with her parents, therefore, she could easily take care of them, thus there was not much of a cause for the wife being unable to look after the children, held the Court. 

Further, reflecting on the trends seen in the transfer cases in matrimonial matters, the Court stated that in this modern era, there is a clamour for equity of sexes and merely because the applicant is a wife, the Court should not be swayed by emotions tilting towards the fairer sex.

Thus, given the fact that the husband was a dealer while the wife is a housewife, the Court was of the opinion that making the husband attend the proceedings at a far off place by virtue of this transfer plea would further be a cause of harassment to the husband who was already seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 

Additionally, the Court added that the wife cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of her own wrongs and rather the present petition is nothing but sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband not to seek his rights under the law and more so the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC is not to be rightly inferred unless and until there are bonafide compelling reasons for the Court to come to the aid of the applicant.

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment