- (1.) Applicant, by way of instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeks transfer of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'HM Act') titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. Manpreet Kaur filed by the respondent-husband from SAS Nagar (Mohali) to Patiala. Notice of motion was issued and further proceedings before the learned trial Court were stayed. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) It has gone undisputed before this Court that applicant-wife along with her minor child, is living with her parents at Patiala. The child is pursuing his study at Patiala. Applicant is serving at Patiala. No other litigation is pending between the parties except the abovesaid petition under Section 9 of the HM Act filed by the respondent-husband, which is sought to be transferred from Mohali to Patiala. Distance between Mohali and Patiala is about 60 kilometers. In view of the abovesaid fact situation obtaining in the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that present transfer application deserves to be allowed. It is so said because responsibility of the wife for bringing up the children and distance between two places, besides her convenience, are some of the relevant considerations for deciding the transfer applications, like the present one.
(3.) The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by this Court in TA No.945 of 2015 (Sushma and others Vs. Kapil @ Sahil Bansal), which, in turn, was based on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as different High Courts, including this Court. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in Lila Sahu Vs. Kailash Narayan Sahu, 1991 1 HinduLR 518 , T. Sareetha Vs. T. Venkata Subbalah, 1983 AIR(AP) 356 and Pushpa Datt Mishra Vs. Archana Mishra alias Premvati Choubey, 1992 AIR(MP) 260 are concerned, there is no dispute about the observations made therein. However, on close perusal of the cited judgments, none of them has been found of any help to the respondent, these being distinguishable on facts. It is the settled proposition of law that peculiar facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Each case has to be decided as per its own peculiar fact situation. Sometimes difference of even one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 3 SCC 533 .;