IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 147 Minakshi @ Meenakshi Balbir Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. wife is for transfer of the petition Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No.HMA/580/2024 titled as “ (Annexure P Guardian and Wards Act bearing No.CW/67/2023 titled as “Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi” (Annexure P Pathankot Rupnagar 2. i) Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application Date of decision :-21.05.2026 Minakshi @ Meenakshi Versus Balbir Singh CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Chandermani Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sirjan Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this Transfer Application is for transfer of the petition filed by respondent Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No.HMA/580/2024 titled as “Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi” nexure P-3); as well as Application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act bearing No.CW/67/2023 titled as “Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi” (Annexure P-2) pending in the Family Court, Pathankot to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended : That the parties were married on to Hindu rites and rituals. 677 of 2025 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Chandermani Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sirjan Sharma, Advocate Mr. Vishal Sharma (Vasudeva), Advocate Transfer Application filed by applicant- filed by respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi” ; as well as Application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act bearing No.CW/67/2023 titled as “Balbir pending in the Family Court, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Nangal, District Learned counsel for the applicant has contended :- the parties were married on 01.11.2004 according VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) 3. transfer of the Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) That a male child was born out of this wedlock 30.5.2010, who is in the care and cus applicant. iii) That the applicant-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband 07.2.2021 accommodation at Nangal, District Rupnagar working there. iv) That the applicant is presently working as Helper/Labourer at Aqueel Enterprises, Nestle, Tahilwal, Himachal Pradesh and the minor son is studying in 10 class at Shivalik Model Sr. Sec. School, Naya Nangal, District Ropar @ Rupnagar; and not paying anything to her maintenance. That the proceedings arising out of petitions : (a) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar in which notice has been issued to the respondent, who has also appeared before that Court and the proceedings are pending. vi) That the distance between place of residence of the applicant-wife i.e. Nangal, District Rupnagar place of proceedings under Section Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act respondent-husband, pending before the Family Court, Pathankot, is about 220 kilometers on one side. vii) That there is no proficient male member in the family of the applicant except minor child her to the Court of proceedings at It is inter alia on these grounds that applicant transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above. 677 of 2025 (O & M) 2 child was born out of this wedlock on , who is in the care and custody of the wife is living separately from the 07.2.2021 and living in a rented Nangal, District Rupnagar and applicant is presently working as ourer at Aqueel Enterprises, Nestle, Tahilwal, Himachal Pradesh and the minor son is studying in 10th class at Shivalik Model Sr. Sec. School, Naya Nangal, District Ropar @ Rupnagar; and respondent-husband is not paying anything to her or the minor child towards That the proceedings arising out of petitions :- under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Nangal, District in which notice has been issued to the respondent, who has also appeared before that Court and the proceedings are pending. That the distance between place of residence of the Nangal, District Rupnagar and the under Section 13 of the Act and Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, filed by the husband, pending before the Family Court, kilometers on one side. That there is no proficient male member in the family of except minor child, who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Pathankot. It is inter alia on these grounds that applicant prays for case, as detailed in para 1 above. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the applicant is not the resident of Nangal, District Rupnagar, rather is the resident of District Una, Himachal Prades transfer of the cases, as prayed for, to District Una, Himachal Pradesh and for that she had to approach to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present Transfer Application on the basis of fake facts has been filed by th has been filed by the applicant after filing of the present Transfer Application. It is pointed out that the present Transfer Application was filed on 7.4.2025, whereas the Rent Deed is of dated 15.4.202 It is accordingly prayed that the present Transfer Application may be dismissed. 5. the case file. 6. for the respondent, t present Transfer Application that she is working as Helper/Labourer at Aqueel Enterprises, Nestle, Tahiwal residing at Nangal and her minor son is also studying in 10 Shivalik Model Sr. Secondary School, Naya Nangal, District Ropar @ Rupnagar. is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) Learned counsel for the respondent submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the applicant is not the resident of Nangal, District Rupnagar, rather is the resident of District Una, Himachal Prades transfer of the cases, as prayed for, to District Una, Himachal Pradesh and for that she had to approach to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present Transfer Application on the basis of fake facts has been filed by the applicant. It is submitted that a fake rent deed has been filed by the applicant after filing of the present Transfer Application. It is pointed out that the present Transfer Application was filed on 7.4.2025, whereas the Rent Deed is of dated 15.4.202 It is accordingly prayed that the present Transfer Application may be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. With regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent, the applicant has already clear in para 9 of the present Transfer Application that she is working as Helper/Labourer at Aqueel Enterprises, Nestle, Tahiwal residing at Nangal and her minor son is also studying in 10 Shivalik Model Sr. Secondary School, Naya Nangal, District Ropar @ Rupnagar. The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. 677 of 2025 (O & M) 3 Learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the applicant is not the resident of Nangal, District Rupnagar, rather is the resident of District Una, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, she has to seek transfer of the cases, as prayed for, to District Una, Himachal Pradesh and for that she had to approach to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present Transfer Application on the basis of fake facts e applicant. It is submitted that a fake rent deed has been filed by the applicant after filing of the present Transfer Application. It is pointed out that the present Transfer Application was filed on 7.4.2025, whereas the Rent Deed is of dated 15.4.2025. It is accordingly prayed that the present Transfer Application may be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused With regard to the submission made by learned counsel he applicant has already clear in para 9 of the present Transfer Application that she is working as Helper/Labourer at Aqueel Enterprises, Nestle, Tahiwal, Himachal Pradesh but residing at Nangal and her minor son is also studying in 10th Class at Shivalik Model Sr. Secondary School, Naya Nangal, District Ropar The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 7. “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.” 8. aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is most relevant wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of th behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same pa common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” Further reliance can be placed upon the “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.” Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while 677 of 2025 (O & M) 4 , is most relevant wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of d the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their fe. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document considering the transfer of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. well established. 1890, petition for custody is required to be filed where the minor child ordinarily resides. In the present case, minor residing with 9. i.e. Sumita Singh’s (supra) and Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions: Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most t the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. The legal position in such like cases as the present one, is well established. As per Section 9 of the , petition for custody is required to be filed where the minor child ordinarily resides. In the present case, minor residing with applicant at Nangal, District Rupnagar. In view of the facts mentioned above and the Sumita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions: a) The petition filed by respondent husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955, bearing No. HMA/580/2024 titled as ‘Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi’ (Annexure P under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act bearing No.GW/67/2023 titled as ‘Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi’ (Annexure P Family Court, Pathankot 677 of 2025 (O & M) 5 of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most t the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. position in such like cases as the present one, is As per Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, , petition for custody is required to be filed where the minor child ordinarily resides. In the present case, minor daughter is admittedly at Nangal, District Rupnagar. facts mentioned above and the judgments Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:- The petition filed by respondent husband under of Hindu Marriage Act,1955, bearing 580/2024 titled as ‘Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi’ (Annexure P-3); as well as Application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act bearing No.GW/67/2023 titled as ‘Balbir Singh vs. Minakshi’ (Annexure P-2) pending in the Pathankot are transferred to a Court VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. make all endeavour to refer the case Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 9. between the parti calendar month. 11. ordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh Karmajit Singh. May 21, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Transfer Application No.677 of 2025 (O & M) of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. b) The learned District Judge, to transfer complete aforesaid cases to District Judge, Rupnagar. c) The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge Rupnagar on 23.6.2026. d) The District Judge, Nangal, District Rupnagar assign the said petition jurisdiction. The concerned Court at Nangal, make all endeavour to refer the cases Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. The Court concerned, where the litigation pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co ordinate Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh. Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 677 of 2025 (O & M) 6 of competent jurisdiction at Nangal, District District Judge, Pathankot is directed complete record pertaining to the to District Judge, Nangal, District directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Nangal, District 23.6.2026. Nangal, District Rupnagar will assign the said petitions to the Court of competent Nangal, District Rupnagar will before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable The Court concerned, where the litigation pending es, will accommodate them with one date in one I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co- TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.25 20.48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document