IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 143 Somanjit Kaur @ Somanpreet Kaur Manpreet Singh CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. of the petition filed by respondent Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/19/2025 titled as “Manpreet Singh vs. Somanpreet Kaur” (Annexure P learned Family Court, Fatehgarh S jurisdiction at Patiala. Joshi, Advocate had put in appearance and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent. On that date, he sought time to file reply. However, t respondent. 2. i) ii) Transfer Application No.636 of 2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. Date of decision :-27.05.2026 Somanjit Kaur @ Somanpreet Kaur Versus Manpreet Singh CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Shubhashish Kukreti, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed by applicant of the petition filed by respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/19/2025 titled as “Manpreet Singh vs. Somanpreet Kaur” (Annexure P learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. Order sheets shows that on 09.2.2026, Mr. Prem Chand Joshi, Advocate had put in appearance and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent. On that date, he sought time to file reply. However, thereafter, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits : That the parties were married on 30.4.2017. That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who, at the time of filing of the present Transfer Application, as per the 636 of 2025 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.636 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Shubhashish Kukreti, Advocate Prayer in this petition filed by applicant-wife is for transfer husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the Act’) bearing No. HMA/19/2025 titled as “Manpreet Singh vs. Somanpreet Kaur” (Annexure P-1) pending in the ahib to a Court of competent Order sheets shows that on 09.2.2026, Mr. Prem Chand Joshi, Advocate had put in appearance and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent. On that date, he sought time to file reply. hereafter, no one has put in appearance on behalf of Learned counsel for the applicant submits :- That the parties were married on 30.4.2017. That a male child was born out of this wedlock, who, at the the present Transfer Application, as per the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.29 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document iii) iv) v) vi) vii) 3. transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above. 4. 5. such like cases as the present one, is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Liv Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: Transfer Application No.636 of 2025 (O & M) applicant, was about 02 years and is also in her care and custody. iii) That the applicant-wife is living separately from the respondent-husband since 04.5.2024 and living with her parents at their mercy at Patiala. iv) That the applicant is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents and the respondent-husband is not paying anything to her towards maintenance. That the proceedings arising out of : (a) CRM-94-2025 dated 173(4) of BNS; (b) under the DV Act bearing No.COMA/1052/2025 filed by the applicant-wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Patiala. vi) That the distance between place of residence of the applicant wife i.e. Patiala and the place of proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent the learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, is about 60 kilometers on one side. vii) That there is no proficient male member in the fami applicant who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Fatehgarh Sahib. It is inter alia on these grounds that applicant prays for transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, 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 A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 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 636 of 2025 (O & M) 2 applicant, was about 02 years and is also in her care and wife is living separately from the husband since 04.5.2024 and living with her tiala. That the applicant is unemployed, having no source of income and totally dependent upon her parents and the husband is not paying anything to her towards That the proceedings arising out of :- 2025 dated 17.1.2025 under Section under the DV Act bearing No.COMA/1052/2025 wife, are pending in the Courts having competent jurisdiction at Patiala. That the distance between place of residence of the applicant- e i.e. Patiala and the place of proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent-husband, pending before the learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, is about 60 That there is no proficient male member in the family of applicant who can accompany her to the Court of proceedings at Fatehgarh Sahib. on these grounds that applicant prays for transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove, 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 e Law (SC) 627, wherein the “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.29 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required 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.” 7. aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer 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 important the Transfer Application No.636 of 2025 (O & M) 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 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 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 parties which raise common question of fact and law 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 u “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237 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 ting 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 considering the transfer 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 important the 636 of 2025 (O & M) 3 ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, eding. 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, andard 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 n the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while 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 decisions.” 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 deciding the transfer 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 ting 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 considering the transfer 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 important the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.29 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot tra 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. 8. fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the applicant wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Singh’s case (supra), Aishwarya’s Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions: 9. refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. Transfer Application No.636 of 2025 (O & M) 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. After going through the entire paper fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the applicant wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. case (supra), Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s 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 9 of Act, bearing No. “Manpreet Singh vs. Somanpreet Kaur the learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Patiala. b) The ld. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the afor case to District Judge, Patiala. c) The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala on d) The District Judge, Patiala will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The concerned Court at Patiala will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 636 of 2025 (O & M) 4 vel 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 After going through the entire paper-book, considering the fact that issuance of notice to the respondent has the consequences of staying further proceedings before the trial Court, otherwise the applicant- wife will have to bear the litigation expenses and transportation expenses and in case, notice of motion is issued, even the respondent-husband has to bear the litigation expenses and in view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and N.C.V. se (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the The petition filed by respondent husband under of Act, bearing No. HMA/19/2025 titled as reet Singh vs. Somanpreet Kaur”, pending in the learned Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at The ld. District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Patiala. The parties are directed to appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala on 23.7.2026, The District Judge, Patiala will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. d Court at Patiala will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.29 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. 11. Bench of this Court in TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Sing No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh. 12. behalf of respondent parties before the Court at this order be sent to the Parties through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e present in the Court, is also directed to ensure May 27, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No Transfer Application No.636 of 2025 (O & M) The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between arties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Sing No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh. As already noticed above, since there is no representation on behalf of respondent-husband today, in order to ensure appearance of the parties before the Court at Patiala on 23.7.2026 this order be sent to the respondent at the address given in the Memo of Parties through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the District Judges concerned through e-mail. The applicant resent in the Court, is also directed to ensure Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Reportable Yes / No 636 of 2025 (O & M) 5 The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between arties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co-ordinate 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. As already noticed above, since there is no representation on husband today, in order to ensure appearance of the 23.7.2026, it is directed that a copy of at the address given in the Memo of Parties through registered post, besides sending a copy of this order to the The applicant through counsel, resent in the Court, is also directed to ensure her appearance accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.29 09.02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document