(O & M) v. Jashanjit anjit Singh Ranu

Judgment

1. Prayer in this petition filed filed by applicant-wife is for transfer of sfer of the petition filed by respondent dent-husband under Sections 13 of the Hi e Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for sh (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No.HMA/5 MA/509/2025 titled as “Jashanjit Singh t Singh Ranu vs. Chetan Bhullar” (Annexure exure P-1) pending in the Court of Prin f Principal Judge, Family Court, Barnala to a ala to a Court of competent jurisdiction iction at Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the applica pplicant submits :- i) That the present Transfer Appl r Application is being pursued by the mother of the applicant-w wife, namely, Smt. Navdeep Kaur aged 55 years, being S eing Special Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant-wi wife as the applicant-wife alongwith her daughter are resid re residing in Canada. (ii) That the parties were married arried on 18.8.2021 according to Sikh rites and rituals. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1369-2025 2 iii) ) That a female child was bor as born out of this wedlock on

30.12.2024 and is in the care an care and custody of the applicant. iv) ) That the applicant-wife is l is living separately from the respondent-husband since 20.2 e 20.2.2025 and living alongwith her minor child with her p her parents at their mercy at Ludhiana. v) That the applicant is unemplo nemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent ndent upon her old aged parents and the respondent-husband is and is not paying anything to her towards maintenance. vi) That the proceedings arising ou out of petition :- (a) under the Prot Protection of Women Domestic Violenc iolence Act, 2005 (b) under Section 9 o on 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act; (c) under Section 125 on 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant-wife, a ife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction iction at Ludhiana and in all the said cases the respondent-husb husband is very much appearing before the Court. vii) ) That the distance between p een place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Ludhiana an iana 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, Barnala, is about 77 kilo 7 kilometers on one side. viii) i) That mother of the applicant- -wife being an old lady of 55 years is suffering from various arious age related ailments and it is very difficult for her to tr to travel and pursue the Court

3. proceedings at Barnala. 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1369-2025 3 under Secti r Section 13 of the Act, filed by the by the respondent-husband to the Court of co t of competent jurisdiction at Barnala o rnala on the basis that the present Transfer A sfer Application has been filed just just to harass the respondent- husband.

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 marriage subsequent 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.” VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1369-2025 4

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 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 Section 13 of Hindu M indu Marriage Act,1955, bearing No. HMA/509/2025 title titled as ‘Jashanjit Singh Ranu VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1369-2025 5 vs. Chetan Bhullar’, ’, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Fam Family Court, Barnala transferred to a Court o ourt of competent jurisdiction at Ludhiana. b) The ld. District Judge, B dge, Barnala is directed to transfer complete record pertaini ertaining to the aforesaid case to dhiana. District Judge, Ludhiana c) The parties are directed t ected to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhi Ludhiana on 16.6.2026. d) The District Judge, Lud e, Ludhiana will assign the said petition to the Court of c rt of competent jurisdiction.

8. The concerned Court at Ludhia Ludhiana will make all endeavour to refer th fer the case before the Mediation an tion and Conciliation Centre for exploring t ring the possibility of some amicab micable settlement between the parties.

9. The Court concerned, where the 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. , 2026 May 14, 20 Asija Vijay Asija ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether spe Whether Rep er speaking/reasoned Yes / No er Reportable Yes / No VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document