- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
This order concerns a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings instituted by the husband and pending as HMA No. 68 of 2000 before the District Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan. The wife sought transfer to a court in Chandigarh, stating that she now resides in Chandigarh and cannot travel alone to Barmer (approximately 700 kilometres away). She also stated that she cannot leave her four-year-old daughter, who is unwell, during the time required for travel and court appearances. She further asserted financial difficulties due to non-payment of maintenance.
The husband’s position, as recorded by the court, was limited to suggesting that the transfer be made instead to a court in Ambala because he was stationed at Purulia.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the matrimonial proceedings pending before the District Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan should be transferred to a court in Chandigarh on the grounds asserted by the wife.
Arguments of the Parties
Wife's Arguments
- She resides in Chandigarh and cannot travel alone to Barmer, which is about 700 kilometres away.
- She cannot leave her four-year-old daughter, who is also unwell, during the period required to attend proceedings at Barmer.
- She is facing financial difficulties as no maintenance is being paid to her.
Husband's Arguments
- The transfer, if granted, should be to a court in Ambala because the husband is stationed at Purulia.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the transfer petition set out averments regarding the wife’s inability to travel from Chandigarh to Barmer, the need to care for her young and unwell child, and her financial difficulty due to non-payment of maintenance. The court observed that these averments were “not really disputed.” On that basis, and “having regard to the averments made in the transfer petition,” the court concluded that it was appropriate to make the petition absolute.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The transfer petition was allowed, and HMA No. 68 of 2000 pending before the District Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan was ordered to stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh. The District Judge, Chandigarh may hear the matter personally or assign it to an appropriate forum.
The direct implication is that the matrimonial proceedings will no longer be heard in Barmer and will proceed in Chandigarh. The court also directed that there be no order as to costs. The order, as provided, does not discuss broader implications or set out any new legal principle.
Order
1. This is a transfer petition by the wife. She seeks the transfer of matrimonial proceedings filed by the husband before the District Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan to a court in Chandigarh. It is the wife's case that she cannot travel alone from Chandigarh, where she now stays, to Barmer which is about 700 kilometres away. She cannot leave her four-year-old daughter, who is otherwise also unwell, during the time she would have to go to Barmer. She is also in financial difficulties because no maintenance is being paid to her. The only defence that is placed before us on behalf of the husband is that the transfer may be effected to a court in Ambala because the husband is now stationed at Purulia.
2. Having regard to the averments made in the transfer petition, which are not really disputed, it is appropriate to make the petition absolute.
3. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. HMA No. 68 of 2000 pending before the District Judge, Barmer, Rajasthan shall stand transferred to the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, who may hear it himself or assign it for hearing to an appropriate forum.
4. No order as to costs.
Alert