Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for & Ors. v. Rohit Singh for grant of maintenance, which is pending adjudication before

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HARKESH MANUJA Present: Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Harkirat Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Diljeet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the Mr. Diljeet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) HARKESH MANUJA ****

#1. The applicant The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing HMA/157/2025, titled “Rohit Singh of petition bearing HMA/ , filed Rohit Singh vs. Nitika”, filed (hereinafter to be under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, referred as “the Act”) at the instance of respondent referred as “the Act”) husband; from the at the instance of respondent-husband; from the to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur. competent Court of jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. competent Court of jurisdiction at Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent 2. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 19.04.2018; out of their wedlock, was solemnized on two children ; out of their wedlock, two children namely Tanishka (aged 6 years) nd Saaketh Singh (aged 3 years) were Tanishka (aged 6 years) and Saaketh Singh (aged 3 years) were nd Saaketh Singh (aged 3 years) were ; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above ; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above ; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 of the Act, came to be preferred at mentioned petition under Section 13 of the Act, came to be preferred at mentioned petition under Section 13 of the Act, came to be preferred at mentioned petition under Section 13 of the Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent husband. Thereupon, the present application e instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife. seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant

#3. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia Learned counsel for the applicant, , contends that the inter alia, contends that the applicant-wife is residing along is residing along with her minor child at her parental minor children at her parental 2 TA-948-2025 home at Gurdaspur. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Pathankot to Family Court, Gurdaspur.

#4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

#6. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS bearing No.125/105/2025 titled “Nitika and Ors. Vs. Rohit Singh for grant of maintenance, which is pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Gurdaspur and the applicant-wife does not have any independent source of income. Besides it, the applicant is also taking care of her minor children namely, Tanishka and Saaketh Singh.

#7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in “Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 held that, in the interest of both the parties, all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court and, accordingly, allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:- “3. As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already pending in Family Court, Bhopal, and it will be in the interests of both the parties to try all their cases in Bhopal. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer may not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to Bhopal for conduct of other cases pending in Family Court, Bhopal.

#4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court.

#5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.”

#8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble 3 TA-948-2025 opinion of this Court, since a maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS is pending adjudication at Gurdaspur, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e. HMA/157/2025, titled “Rohit Singh vs. Nitika”, filed by the respondent- husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Pathankot to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Gurdaspur. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Family Court, Pathankot to the Court concerned.

#9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

10.07.2026 Tejwinder (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No