HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the applicant (in TA-1011-2025). Mr. Sachin Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent (in TA-1011-2025) and for the applicant (in TA-1011-2025). ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)

By this common judgment, the following two transfer applications are being decided as common question of law and facts are involved: (A) TA-No.1011 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of petition bearing HMA.80/2025 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Parveen Kumar vs. Mamta Kadyan” filed under Section 13(1) (ia & ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “1955 Act”) from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Jhajjar; TA-1011-2025 (O&M) and TA-1704-2025 (O&M) --2-- (B) TA-No.1704 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant- husband, seeking transfer of petition bearing MNT.25/70/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as “Mamta and others vs. Parveen” filed under Section 144 of BNSS from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Gurugram; For convenience, the facts are being taken from TA-1011-2025 (O&M).

Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 28.02.2009; out of the wedlock, two girl children were born; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife.

Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contends that the applicant-wife has also filed the following three cases, which are pending before the ld. Family Court, Jhajjar:- (i) a complaint bearing No.DV/28/2025 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “DV Act”); (ii) petition bearing MNT/70/2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance; (iii) case bearing No.CHI/561/2025. It is submitted that the applicant is residing at her parental home at Jhajjar along with her two daughters. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent- TA-1011-2025 (O&M) and TA-1704-2025 (O&M) --3-- husband from Family Court, Gurugram to Family Court, Jhajjar.

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

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

In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed the abovementioned three cases, which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Jhajjar.

As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her parents. Besides it, the applicant has to take care of two daughters, who are studying in Jhajjar.

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:- As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already

3. 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. parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. 5. Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.

We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family

Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble TA-1011-2025 (O&M) and TA-1704-2025 (O&M) --4-- Supreme Court has observed that

while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weight age and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since the three cases i.e. complaint bearing No.DV/28/2025 under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19 and 22 of the DV Act; petition bearing MNT/70/2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and case bearing No.CHI/561/2025 are pending adjudication at Jhajjar, 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 (TA-1011-2025) filed by the applicant-wife is allowed and the petition under Section 13(1) (ia & ib) of the 1955 Act i.e. bearing No.HMA/80/2025, titled “Parveen Kumar vs. Mamta Kadyan”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram to the Family Court, Jhajjar, whereas, the transfer application (TA-1704-2025) filed by the applicant-husband is dismissed. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court, Gurugram to the Court concerned.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

14.07.2026 sonika (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No