1 122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SEEMA RAKESH KUMAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent (Through video conferencing). HARKESH MANUJA 1. The applicant of petition bearing Seema”, filed under Section (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) husband; from the Court of learned Chandigarh to Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. 2. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on namely, Ojas and Ashish Kumar were 05.01.2009 respectively parties, the above mentioned petition under Section be preferred at the instance of respo present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, applicant-wife is residing at IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: Versus RAKESH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate for the Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent (Through video conferencing). **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing No. 4286 of 2025, titled , filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) at the instance of husband; from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior D Chandigarh to Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 21.09.2001; out of their wedloc Ojas and Ashish Kumar were 05.01.2009 respectively; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section be preferred at the instance of respondent present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia is residing at her cousin’s house at Kotkapura, District TA-1692-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1692-2025 Date of Decision: July 10, 2026 ........Applicant ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer , titled “Rakesh Kumar vs. of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of respondent- Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh to Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent ; out of their wedlock, two children Ojas and Ashish Kumar were born on 17.09.2003 and ; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 9 of the Act, came to ndent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the inter alia, contends that the her cousin’s house at Kotkapura, District 2025 July 10, 2026 wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer vs. 1955 - vision), Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent two children on 17.09.2003 and ; on account of matrimonial discord between the of the Act, came to husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the , contends that the her cousin’s house at Kotkapura, District TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 16:22 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 TA-1692-2025 Faridkot. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Chandigarh to Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing No. COMA/300/2025 which is pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridkot. Moreover, the applicant-wife does not have any independent source of income to support herself. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in “Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 held that, in the interest of both the parties, all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court and, accordingly, allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:- “3. As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already pending in Family Court, Bhopal, and it will be in the interests of both the parties to try all their cases in Bhopal. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer may not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to Bhopal for conduct of other cases pending in Family Court, Bhopal. 4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. 5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.” 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a complaint under Section 12 of Protection of TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 16:22 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 TA-1692-2025 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is pending adjudication at Faridkot, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place. Consequently the transfer application is allowed and the petition bearing No. 4286 of 2025 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled “Rakesh Kumar vs. Seema”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh to Court of competent jurisdiction at Faridkot. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh to the Court concerned. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.07.14 16:22 I agree to specified portions of this document