Sardarni Navjot Kaur Sidhu vs Sardar Harpreet Singh Anand on 18 July, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Sardarni Navjot Kaur Sidhu vs Sardar Harpreet Singh Anand on 18 July, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010110582025




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./28/2025

            SARDARNI NAVJOT KAUR SIDHU
            W/O SARDAR HARPREET SINGH ANAND
            D/O LATE DIDAR SINGH SIDHU
            R/O 270, BIMLA BORA ROAD, NEAR FIRE STATION, FAUZDARI PATTY, P.O.
            AND P.S. NAGAON,
            DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM,
            PIN-782001, MOBILE NO. 9319673837.



            VERSUS

            SARDAR HARPREET SINGH ANAND
            S/O SARDAR SURJIT SINGH ANAND
            R/O FLAT NO.01,AMBIKA ESTATE BIJULI MILL ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, P.O.
            ULUBARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM-
            781007
            PH. 9435042324



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H AGARWAL, MR J SINGH

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. DITUL DAS, MR. A K SINGH,MR. D S SINGH




                                  BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                          ORDER

Date : 18.07.2025

1. Heard Mr. J.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Sardarni Navjot Kaur
Page No.# 2/6

Sidhu and Mr. D.S.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Sardar Harpreet
Singh Anand.

2. By filing this petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the F.C. (Civil) Case
No.1565/2024 from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court at
Guwahati, Kamrup (M) to the court of learned District and Sessions Judge,
Nagaon.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the
respondent solemnized their marriage on 11.06.2021 and after their marriage,
both of them started living together as husband and wife at the house of the
respondent. Thereafter, their marital life was struck by a chord of disharmony,
and the petitioner went to her parental home. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has been physically and mentally tortured at her matrimonial home.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is unemployed and has no source of
income and is solely dependent on her old mother who herself is facing serious
health issues.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
feels threatened to attend the proceedings before the Family court at Guwahati
as she is unable to bear expenses in travelling from her current residence at
Nagaon and it is not safe for her to undertake the journey alone. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is financially
sound and has sufficient income having movable and immovable properties. It is
also submitted that transfer of the matrimonial suit would not, in any way,
prejudice the respondent since the respondent has the means and resources to
cover such distance for litigation to travel to Nagaon from Guwahati.

Page No.# 3/6

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, prays that this is a fit
case to transfer the F.C.(Civil) Case No. 1565/2024 pending in the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court at Guwahati to the court of the District Judge at
Nagaon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C.V. Aishwarya -vs- A.S.Saravana
Karthik Sha reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, wherein in paragraph -9, it
has been observed as below:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the
suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are
called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into
consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of
the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the
marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in
eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking
their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the
Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at
while considering transfer.”

6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that
after their marriage, the petitioner always wanted to live a lavish, extravagant
and luxurious lifestyle. It is also submitted that the petitioner is very impulsive
and short tempered and she has levelled baseless allegations against the family
members of the respondent. The petitioner is a Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT)
from Galgotias University and can earn her livelihood. Therefore, the prayer of
the petitioner for transferring the proceeding from Guwahati to Nagaon may not
be allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das -vs- Srijit Das reported
Page No.# 4/6

in MANU/SC/2855/2005, wherein it has been observed that:

“5.This transfer petitioner has been filed by the wife on the ground that the
Petitioner has a small child of six years. She has further claimed that she has no
source of income and it is difficult for her to attend the Court at Delhi. She has
further claimed that she is not keeping good health.

6. In of this Petition, large number of authorities have been cited, namely
Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri reported in (2002) 10 SCC 136, Leena Mukherjee v.
Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in (2002) 10 SCC 480, Ram Gulam Pandit and
Anr. v. Umesh J.Prasad reported in (2002) 10 SCC 551 and Rajwinder Kaur v.
Balwinder Singh reported in MANU/SC/1515/2001: (2003) 11 SCC 26. These
authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay
down any particular law which operates as precedent.

7. Even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this Court was showing
leniency to ladies, But since then it has been found that a large number of
transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency taken by
this Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on Board of
each Court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this
Court is being misused by the women.

8. This Court is now required to consider each petition on its merit. In this case
the ground taken by the wife is that she has a small child and that there is
nobody to keep her child. The child, in this case, is six years old and there are
grandparents available to look after the child. The Respondent is willing to pay
all expenses for travel and stay for the Petitioner and her companion for every
visit when the Petitioner is required to attend the Court at Delhi, Thus, the
ground that the Petitioner has no source of income is adequately met.”

7. I have considered the submissions of the parties at the Bar with
Page No.# 5/6

circumspection.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is taking care of her old
and ailing mother who is suffering from a heart condition. I have scrutinized the
Annexure-1 series which are the medical documents. It is also submitted that
the petitioner has to take care of her mother and if she travels upto Guwahati,
her mother may succumb. A close scrutiny of the medical documents reveal that
ECG report is normal. The petitioner’s mother is 57 years old and she has been
provided treatment in Apollo Clinic at Dispur, Guwahati. Dr. Mayank Agarwal who
has provided treatment to the petitioner’s mother is a Cardiologist at Apollo
Clinic at Guwahati.

9. It is also submitted that the petitioner has received her notice in Nagaon
which belies the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
petitioner is residing in Guwahati and she has falsely submitted that she resides
alone with her mother.

10. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner is not the only daughter. Her brothers can very well take care of her
mother. At present the petitioner is residing in her parental home and she is
from an affluent family running a wine shop at Nagaon. The respondent is
willing to bear the travel expenses of the petitioner along with an attendant and
also expenses for accommodation during the hearing of this case.

11. The ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
N.C.V.Aiwshwarya (supra) does not appear to be applicable to this case. The
petitioner is a Physiotherapist and appears to be a well educated lady.

12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Page No.# 6/6

Anindita Das (supra), this petition stands rejected under the condition that the
respondent who is willing to pay for the travel expenses and accommodation of
the petitioner along with an attendant during court hearing shall bear the travel
expense and accommodation when the petitioner is required to attend court
hearing and the court may also dispose of the F.C.(Civil) Case No, 1565/2024
through video conferencing.

13. In terms of the above observations, this transfer petition stands disposed
of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant