(O & M) v. Gursharan sharanvir Singh

Judgment

1. Prayer in this petition filed filed by applicant-wife is for transfer of fer of the petition filed by respondent ndent-husband under Section 9 of the Hin e Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for s (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No.HMA/1 MA/12074/2024 titled as “Gurshar ursharanvir Singh vs. Harjot Kaur” (An ” (Annexure P-2) pending in the the Court of Principal Judge, Family Co ily Court, Ludhiana to a Court of c rt of competent jurisdiction at iarpur. Hoshiarpur

Learned counsel for the applic applicant submits :- i) That the parties were married arried on 10.11.2022 according to Sikh rites and rituals. ii) That a female child was bor as born out of this wedlock on

17.8.2023, who is in the c the care and custody of the applicant. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1677-2024 (O & M) 2 iii) That the applicant-wife is li iii) e is living separately from the respondent-husband and livi d living alongwith her minor child with her single old age ld aged mother at her mercy at Hoshiarpur as father of the app the applicant has already expired. 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 is and is not paying anything to her towards maintenance. v) That the proceedings arising o ising out of petition :- (a) Complaint Case Case under Section 85, 3(5) of BNS bearing No. g No.COMI-5690/2024; (b) FIR No.91 dated dated 04.8.2024 under Section 85 of BNSS at SS at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarp shiarpur filed by the applicant-wife, a wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction iction at Hoshiarpur. vi) That the distance between p vi) een place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Hoshiar oshiarpur and the place of proceedings under Section 9 ion 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending nding before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, is ab a, is about 90 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 proceedings at Ludhiana. It is inter alia on these groun grounds that applicant prays for

3. transfer of fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab ra 1 above.

4. Learned counsel for the respon respondent is not in a position to controvert rovert 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 Sect r Section 9 of the Act, filed by the y the respondent-husband to the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1677-2024 (O & M) 3 Court of c t of competent jurisdiction at Ludhi Ludhiana on the basis that the present Tr nt Transfer Application has been been filed just to harass the responden ndent-husband.

5. I have heard learned counsel unsel for the parties and perused the case file ase file.

6. The legal position in such lik ch like cases as the present one, is well esta ll established. In this regard, judgmen dgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rend t rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs ya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 202 ” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is m , is most relevant wherein the Hon’ble Su ’ble Supreme Court has held as under: nder:- 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.

10. 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

7. 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1677-2024 (O & M) 4 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.”

8. 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 considering dering 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.

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 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 Sections 9 of Hindu M ndu Marriage Act,1955, bearing No. HMA/12074/2024 4/2024 titled as ‘Gursharanvir Singh vs. Harjot Kaur’ Kaur’, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Fam , Family Court, Ludhiana VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document TA-1677-2024 (O & M) 5 transferred to a Court o ourt of competent jurisdiction at Hoshiarpur. b) The ld. District Judge Judge, Ludhiana is directed to transfer complete record pertaining aforesaid case to Distric District Judge, Hoshiarpur. c) The parties are direct directed to appear before the District & Sessions sions Judge, Hoshiarpur on

16.6.2026. d) The District Judge, Hos Hoshiarpur will assign the said petition to the Court of c urt of competent jurisdiction.

8. The concerned Court at at Hoshiarpur will make all endeavour avour to refer the case before the M the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for re for exploring the possibility of s y of some amicable settlement between th een the parties.

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

11. I am supported by the deci e decisions rendered by a Co- ordinate Be ate Bench of this Court in TA No. 13 No. 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. 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