TA No. 1386 of 2025 · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Prayer in this petition filed filed by applicant-wife is for transfer of fer of the petition filed by respondent ndent-husband under Section 13 of the Hi he Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for (for short ‘the Act’) titled “Maninder ninder Raj Singh vs. Arshdeep Kaur” Kaur” (Annexure P-1) pending in the Cour e Court of Principal Judge, Family Co ily Court, Ludhiana to a Court of compete mpetent jurisdiction at Rajpura, Distri District Patiala. Though notice has been served served upon the respondent but no one is ap ne is appearing on his behalf for the las the last two dates i.e. 14.1.2026 and 20.2.2

20.2.2026. Today also, nobody is p y is present to represent him. Accordingl rdingly, this petition is being decided cided in his absence.

Learned counsel for the applic applicant has contended :- i) That the parties were married arried on 27.11.2017 according to Sikh rites and rituals. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 2 ii) That two children i.e. one g one girl child who is aged six years and second is male chi le child who is about 2.5 years were born out of this wedloc edlock and are in the care and custody of the applicant. iii) That the applicant-wife is li iii) e is living separately from the respondent-husband and livin living with her parents at their mercy at Rajpura, District Pati ct Patiala. iv) That the applicant is unemplo iv) nemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent endent upon her parents and the respondent-husband is not not paying anything to her towards maintenance. v) That during pendency of the present Transfer Application, an application u tion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the app e applicant, which is pending consideration the Co Courts having competent jurisdiction at Rajpura, Distric District Patiala. vi) That the distance between p vi) een place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Rajpura, Di ura, District Patiala and the place of proceedings under Section ection 13 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending nding before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, is ab a, is about 81 kilometers on one side. vii) That there is no proficient ma vii) nt male member in the family of the applicant, who can accom accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Ludhiana.

It is inter alia on these groun grounds that applicant prays for transfer of fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab ra 1 above.

I have heard learned counsel fo nsel for the applicant.

Besides the facts as noti noticed hereinabove, which constitute s titute sufficient grounds for transfer, nsfer, even the legal position in such like c like cases as the present one, is well s well established. In this regard, judgment ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court rendered in N.C.V. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 3 Aishwarya warya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sh hik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, where wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ourt has held as under:- for exercise of power under “9. The cardinal principle for ex il Procedure is that the ends of section 24 of the Code of Civil Pro transfer of the suit, appeal or justice should demand the transfe onial matters, wherever Courts other proceeding. In matrimonial m the plea of transfer, the Courts are called upon to consider the ple on the economic soundness of have to take into consideration the strata of the spouses and their both the parties, the social strata standard of life prior to the behavioural pattern, their standa ereto and the circumstances of marriage and subsequent thereto a ut their livelihood and under both the parties in eking out the they are seeking whose protective umbrella the prevailing socioeconomic sustenance to life. Given the pr iety, generally, it is the wife's paradigm in the Indian society, g looked at while considering convenience which must be look transfer.

Further, when two or more pro different Courts between the sam common question of fact and law, in the cases are interdependent, should be tried together by the sam multiplicity in trial of the same decisions.” ore proceedings are pending in he same parties which raise d law, and when the decisions dent, it is desirable that they the same Judge so as to avoid same issues and conflict of

Further reliance can be place e placed upon the judgments in “Sumita S ita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 20 ”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pa or Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pard Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein th ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ourt has observed that

while deciding th ing the transfer application, the Court Courts are required to give more weightage htage and consideration to the co he convenience of the female litigants an nts and transfer of legal proceedings dings from one Court to another should ord ld ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration convenienc enience and the Courts should de ld desist from putting female litigants un nts under undue hardships.

Even this Court in number o mber of cases has followed the aforesaid p said principle of law. Accordingly, i gly, it is well settled that while VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 4 considering idering the transfer of a matrimonial d onial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife e wife, the Court is to consider the fam the family condition of the wife, the custody ustody of the minor child, economic nomic condition of the wife, her physical h ical health and earning capacity o city of the husband and most important t rtant the convenience of the wife i.e ife i.e. she cannot travel alone without ass out assistance of a male member of h er of her family, connectivity of the place to lace to and fro from her place of resid f residence as well as bearing of the litigatio itigation charges and travelling expens xpenses.

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 ra) 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, su ion, subject to the following conditions ditions:- a) The petition filed by r d by respondent husband under Section 13 of Act, beari , bearing HMA/1009/2025 titled as “Maninder Raj Si aj Singh vs. Arshdeep Kaur, pending in the Court o ourt of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana is tr is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction a ction at Rajpura, District Patiala. b) The ld. District Judge Judge, Ludhiana is directed to transfer complete record pertaining aforesaid case to Distric District Judge, Patiala. c) The parties are direct directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judg ns Judge, Patiala on 16.6.2026. d) The District Judge, Pa Patiala will assign the said petition to the Court of c urt of competent jurisdiction.

The concerned Court at Dis District Patiala will make all endeavour avour to refer the case before the M the Mediation and Conciliation VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1386-2025 (O & M) 5 Centre for re for exploring the possibility of s y of some amicable settlement between th een the parties.

10. The Court concerned, where where the litigation is pending between th een the parties, will accommodate th date them with one date in one calendar m dar month.

I am supported by the deci e decisions rendered by a Co- ordinate Be ate Bench of this Court in TA No. 13 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Tal Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 20 f 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinder vinderjeet Singh; and TA No. 132 . 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit S ajit Singh.

As already noticed above, s ove, since the petition is being disposed o sed of in the absence of the respond spondent as he has opted not to appear des ar despite service, despite that, in the in these peculiar circumstances, in order to der to ensure appearance of the parties parties before the District Judge, Patiala on 1 la on 16.6.2026, it is directed that a co at a copy of this order be sent to the respond espondent through registered post at hi st at his address mentioned in the Memo of P o of Parties, besides sending a copy o copy of this order to the District Judges con es concerned through e-mail. Applic Applicant through her counsel, present in t nt in the Court, is directed to ensure h sure her appearance accordingly. Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 May 14, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document