2025 (O & M) Shaifaly Sh aly Sharma Deepak Sh Sharma v. Shaifaly Sharma” (Annexure exure P-4) pending in the Court of A t

Judgment

#1. Prayer in this petition filed filed by applicant-wife is for transfer of sfer of the petition filed by respondent ndent-husband under Section 13 of the Hi e Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for sh (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No.DMC/7 MC/725/2025 titled as “Deepak Shar Sharma vs. Shaifaly Sharma” (Annexure exure P-4) pending in the Court of A t of Additional Principal Judge, Family Cou ly Court, Patiala to a Court of competen petent jurisdiction at Fazilka.

Learned counsel for the applica pplicant submits :- i) That the parties were married arried on 05.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals. ii) That a female child was bor as born out of this wedlock on

31.10.2023, who is in the the care and custody of the applicant. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1230-2025 (O & M) 2 iii) That the applicant-wife is l iii) is living separately from the respondent-husband since 21.6 e 21.6.2023 and living alongwith her minor child with her parent parents at their mercy at Fazilka. iv) That the applicant is unemplo iv) nemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent ndent upon her old aged parents and the respondent-husband, band, who is working in an IT company at Noida and earning arning Rs.4,00,000/- per month, is not paying anything to her towa r towards maintenance. v) That the proceedings arising ou sing out of petitions :- (a) under the Prot Protection of Women Domestic Violenc iolence Act, 2005 (b) Section 9 of the of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conju f conjugal rights; and (c) Application under under Section 144 of BNSS for grant of maintenan intenance filed by the applicant-wife, a ife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction a ction at Fazilka. vi) That the distance between p vi) een place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Fazilka and ka and the place of proceedings under Section 13 of the Ac the Act, filed by the respondent- husband, pending before the Ad the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala, is about 251 kilo kilometers on one side. vii) That there is no proficient ma vii) nt male member in the family of applicant who can accompa company her to the Court of

#3. proceedings at Patiala. It is inter alia on these groun grounds that applicant prays for transfer of t sfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 abov 1 above.

#4. Learned counsel for the respon respondent is not in a position to controvert overt the above said facts, however, o ever, oppose the prayer made by learned cou ed counsel for the applicant regarding arding transfer of the proceedings under Secti r Section 13 of the Act, filed by the y the respondent-husband to the Court of c t of competent jurisdiction at Patial Patiala on the ground that the respondent ndent has also to take care of his pa his parents at Patiala and just to VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1230-2025 (O & M) 3 harass the ss the respondent-husband, the applic applicant has filed the present application cation for transfer of the petition filed filed by the respondent-husband under Secti ct. r Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

#5. I have heard learned counsel fo nsel for the parties and perused the file. case file.

#6. The legal position in such like h like cases as the present one, is well establi established. In this regard, judgment of ent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in red in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Sar S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law Law (SC) 627, is most relevant whe nt wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has h t has held as under:- ple for exercise of power “9. The cardinal principle fo Code of Civil Procedure is under section 24 of the Code ould demand the transfer of that the ends of justice should d proceeding. In matrimonial the suit, appeal or other procee s are called upon to consider matters, wherever Courts are ca Courts have to take into the plea of transfer, the Cour mic soundness of both the consideration the economic so of the spouses and their parties, the social strata of th standard of life prior to the behavioural pattern, their stand subsequent marriage e parties in eking out their circumstances of both the part ose protective umbrella they livelihood and under whose pro nance to life. Given the are seeking their sustenance ic paradigm in the Indian prevailing socioeconomic par e wife's convenience which society, generally, it is the wife onsidering transfer. must be looked at while conside thereto

#10. Further, when two or m pending in different Courts betw which raise common question when the decisions in the cases is desirable that they should be same Judge so as to avoid mul same issues and conflict of deci or more proceedings are rts between the same parties estion of fact and law, and cases are interdependent, it uld be tried together by the id multiplicity in trial of the of decisions.”

#7. Further reliance can be place placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Si ita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 S 002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1230-2025 (O & M) 4 Pardeshivs eshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 20 i”, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’bl on’ble Supreme Court has observed served that “while deciding the transfer app sfer application, the Courts are required uired to give more weightage and consideratio deration to the convenience of the fem he female litigants and transfer of legal proce proceedings from one Court to ano to another should ordinarily be allowed, ta ed, taking into consideration their co heir convenience and the Courts should desi ld desist from putting female litigants un ants under undue hardships.”

#8. Even this Court in number o mber of cases has followed the aforesaid p said principle of law. Accordingly, it gly, it is well settled that while considering dering the transfer of a matrimonial dis ial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, th ife, the Court is to consider the family family condition of the wife, the custody of t dy of the minor child, economic condit condition of the wife, her physical health and h and earning capacity of the husban husband and most important the convenienc enience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel t travel alone without assistance of a male mem le member of her family, connectivity o tivity of the place to and fro from her place o lace of residence as well as bearing o ring of the litigation charges and travelling e lling expenses.

#9. In view of the facts mentioned ntioned above and the judgments i.e. Sumita umita Singh’s case (supra), Rajan Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and a) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (sup se (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme C eme Court, this Court deems it appro appropriate to allow the present petition, sub on, subject to the following conditions: itions:- a) The petition filed by d by respondent husband under Sections 13 of Hindu M indu Marriage Act,1955, bearing No. DMC/725/2025 titl titled as ‘Deepak Sharma vs. Shaifaly Sharma’, pend , pending in the Court of Addl. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1230-2025 (O & M) 5 Principal Judge, Family amily Court, Patiala is transferred to a Court of competent j etent jurisdiction at Fazilka. b) The ld. District Judge, P dge, Patiala is directed to transfer complete record pertaini ertaining to the aforesaid case to ilka. District Judge, Fazilka. c) The parties are directed t ed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Fazilk Fazilka on 16.6.2026. d) The District Judge, Fa e, Fazilka will assign the said petition to the Court of c rt of competent jurisdiction.

#8. The concerned Court at Fazilka Fazilka will make all endeavour to refer the c the case before the Mediation and on and Conciliation Centre for exploring t ring the possibility of some amicab micable settlement between the parties.

#9. The Court concerned, where the ere the litigation pending between the parties, arties, will accommodate them with with one date in one calendar month.

#11. I am supported by the decision cisions rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of t h of this Court in TA No. 1315/202 15/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; T ar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswind swinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Ran a Rani v Karmajit Singh. Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, st any, stands disposed of. May 15, 20 Vijay Asija , 2026 Asija ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether spe Whether Rep er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document