05.2026 Date o Mandeep Ka eep Kaur v. Anupam Sin m Singh Badhan

Judgment

1. By way of filing the present pe sent petition, the petitioner-wife is seeking tran g transfer of petition filed by respon espondent-husband under Section 13 of the H Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for s (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/1734/2 /1734/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ed as ‘Anupal Singh Badhan vs. Mandeep Ka eep Kaur’ pending before the learned earned Family Court, Ludhiana to the Family C mily Court at Rupnagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitio petitioner, inter alia, submits as under: i) Marriage of the petition etitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 19.02.201

2.2017. ii) One son was born out rn out of the said wedlock on

03.04.2021 who is presen presently in the care and custody of petitioner-mother. iii) Due to matrimonial disc al discord the parties are residing separately since 04.07.20 .07.2021. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -2- iv) There are 03 cases filed b filed by the petitioner-wife which are pending adjudicat judication at District Courts, Rupnagar; which are as u re as under:- (a) Petition under Se (125 Cr.P.C.) bear (Annexure P-7) Family Court, Rup er Section 144 of BNNS, 2023 .) bearing No. MNT125/135/2024 pending before the learned t, Rupnagar; (b) Petition under pro Women from Dom bearing No. COMA pending before the Ist Class, Rupnaga provisions of the Protection of m Domestic Violence Act, 2005 COMA/111/2024 (Annexure P-8) re the learned Judicial Magistrate pnagar; and (c) Criminal bearing complaint COMA/35/2025 (A Sections 3(5), 85, 2023 pending be Magistrate Ist Clas No. 025 (Annexure P-9) filed under ), 85, 15(2), 316(2) of the BNSS, ng before the learned Judicial st Class, Rupnagar. v) The petitioner has no s no source of income and is residing with her old age ld aged widow mother and is fully depended upon her. vi) The petitioner is suffer suffering from various medical ailments prior to the b the birth of child and had to undergo y surgery f adenomyosis endometriomas cysts in t sts in the ovary. The minor son is also undergoing speech th eech therapy and is suffering from mild autism. vii) The distance between een place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Rup . Rupnagar and the place of proceedings filed by t by the respondent-husband at Ludhiana is about 80 ki 80 kilometers on one side. It is very difficult for her her to frequently travel from RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -3- Rupnagar to Ludhian dhiana to attend the Court proceedings.

3. It is accordingly, prayed that that the present petition may be allowed; and and petition bearing No. HMA/173 A/1734/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Anupal S upal Singh Badhan vs. Mandeep Kau p Kaur’ pending before the learned Family Cour y Court, Ludhiana be transferred to th the Family Court at Rupnagar.

4. Per Contra, the only argument

ument raised by learned counsel for the responde spondent-husband is that previously iously also the petitioner-wife had filed similar imilar transfer petitioner which has bee has been dismissed as withdrawn.

5. Learned counsel for the petit e petitioner has clarified that the petitioner-wi wife had made all efforts to rec to reconcile with the respondent, however, it s er, it seems that the same is not possib possible.

6. No other argument has been m I een made on behalf of the parties. I have heard l eard learned counsel for the parties a rties and carefully gone through the case file. I f ile. I find no merit in the submission issions advanced on behalf of the dent. respondent.

7. Besides the facts as noticed h iced hereinabove, which constitute sufficient gro ent grounds for transfer, the legal posi al position in such like cases is well established. ished. In this regard, judgment of t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ed in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Sa 022 .S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (S aw (SC) 627, is notable, wherein the ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as unde nder:- “9. The cardinal principle section 24 of the Code of Civil justice should demand the tra other proceeding. In matrimon are called upon to consider th have to take into consideratio ple for exercise of power under ivil Procedure is that the ends of e transfer of the suit, appeal or imonial matters, wherever Courts r the plea of transfer, the Courts ation the economic soundness of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -4- both the parties, the social str behavioural pattern, their sta marriage and subsequent ther both the parties in eking out whose protective umbrella they to life. Given the prevailing so Indian society, generally, it is must be looked at while conside 10. Further, when two or mo different Courts between the common question of fact and la the cases are interdependent, it be tried together by the sa multiplicity in trial of the s decisions.” l strata of the spouses and their r standard of life prior to the thereto and the circumstances of out their livelihood and under they are seeking their sustenance g socioeconomic paradigm in the it is the wife's convenience which sidering transfer. r more proceedings are pending in the same parties which raise nd law, and when the decisions in nt, it is desirable that they should e same Judge so as to avoid he same issues and conflict of

8. Further reliance can be placed u aced upon the judgments in Sumita Singh vs Ku vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and and Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Bab r Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC ) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme C me Court has observed that “w “while deciding transfer application, ion, the Courts are required to to give more weightage and consideratio ration to the convenience of the fem e female litigants and transfer of legal proce roceedings from one Court to an o another should ordinarily be allowed, tak , taking into consideration their c eir convenience and the Courts should desis esist from putting female litigants un ts under undue hardships.”

9. Even this Court in number mber of cases has followed the aforesaid pr aid principle of law. Accordingly, i ngly, it is well settled that while considering ering the transfer of a matrimonial di nial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the ife, the Court is to consider the fami e family condition of the wife, the custody of y of the minor child, economic condi condition of the wife, her physical health and and earning capacity of the husba husband and most important the convenience nience of the wife i.e. she cannot trave t travel alone without assistance of a male mem e member of her family, connectivity ctivity of the place to and fro from RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -5- her place of ace of residence as well as bearing aring of the litigation charges and travelling ex ing expenses.

10. In view of the judgments i.e. s i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kish i Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) an ra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) pass ) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court, this Court deems it appropriate riate to allow the present petition etition, subject to the following conditions: ions:- a) The petition bearing earing No. HMA/1734/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as led as ‘Anupal Singh Badhan vs. Mandeep Kaur’ pending ending before the learned Family Court, Ludhiana is transf transferred to the learned Family Court at Rupnagar. b) The learned District Jud ct Judge, Ludhiana is directed to transfer complete record record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Ru Rupnagar. c) The parties are directed t ected to appear before the District Judge, Rupnagar on 22.06

22.06.2026. d) The District Judge, Rup Rupnagar will assign the said petition to the Court of co rt of competent jurisdiction.

11. The concerned Court at Rupna Rupnagar will make all endeavour to refer the the case before the Mediation a tion and Conciliation Centre for exploring the ing the possibility of some amicable se able settlement between the parties.

12. The Court concerned, where where the litigation is pending between the en the parties, will accommodate t date them with one date in one calendar mon ar month. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -6-

13. I am supported by the decision ecisions rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of th of this Court in TA No. 1315/20 315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA r; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswind aswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Ran a Rani v Karmajit Singh.

15. The present petition stands disp disposed of, in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

20.05.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.