Hershjit Kaur vs. Inderpreet Singh Grewal

Held

The Court allowed the application for transfer. It held that all cases pending between the parties are a consequence of matrimonial discord. Considering the wife's residence in Patiala and the pendency of other cases (Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Domestic Violence Act) there, it would be proper, appropriate, and in the interest of justice to try and decide all cases at one place. The Court reiterated the principle that in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Rajni Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi. Furthermore, the Court noted the amendment to Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which confers jurisdiction to the court within whose ordinary civil jurisdiction the wife is residing, specifically to consider her convenience. The petition pending in Ludhiana was ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the District Judge, Patiala, for disposal in accordance with law.

Facts

The applicant-wife, Hershjit Kaur, sought the transfer of a divorce petition (HMA No.481 of 2019) filed by the respondent-husband, Inderpreet Singh Grewal, from Ludhiana to Patiala. The wife argued that she resides in Patiala with their minor child and already has a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending there. She contended that the 100 km distance to Ludhiana makes it difficult for her to attend court hearings, especially with the child requiring constant care. The husband's counsel opposed the transfer, highlighting the wife's past employment at universities in Banur (District Patiala) and her potential to work in Gurgaon or Noida, suggesting she could manage the travel. The husband is posted as an Inspector, Central GST, Rajkot, Gujarat.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, should be transferred from Ludhiana to Patiala, considering the wife's residence and the pendency of other cases between the parties in Patiala, in light of the principle of convenience of the wife in matrimonial matters? Contentions: Petitioner (Wife): Argued that she resides in Patiala with her minor child and has other matrimonial cases pending there. The distance to Ludhiana is inconvenient and difficult to manage. She relies on the principle that the convenience of the wife should be preferred in matrimonial disputes, citing Supreme Court judgments and the spirit of constitutional provisions promoting women's dignity and special provisions for women and children. She also points to the amendment in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows a wife to file a petition in the court within whose jurisdiction she resides. Respondent (Husband): Opposed the transfer, arguing that the wife's past employment at universities in Banur (District Patiala) and her potential to work in distant cities like Gurgaon or Noida indicate her ability to travel. He contended that she could manage to attend proceedings in Ludhiana.