TA-584-202 IN THE HIG 202 Ramandeep Jagseer Sing CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking trans of the Hind DMC-1565 Ramandeep Camp Court 2. to responden every time valid service 3. under: 2025 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-58 Date o ndeep Kaur Versus r Singh M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Legal Aid for the petitioner. I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present g transfer of petition filed by responde Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for sh 1565-2024 (Annexure P-1) titled ndeep Kaur’ pending before the learn Court at Phul to a Court of competent As per office report, ordinary as ondent-husband for more than 06 tim time with the same report i.e. ‘refused ervice. Accordingly, this petition is be Learned counsel for the petitio i) The parties solemnized according to Sikh Rites a ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 584-2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA gal Aid Counsel resent petition, petitioner-wife is spondent-husband under Section 9 for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. titled as ‘Jagseer Singh vs. learned Family Court, Bathinda, petent jurisdiction at Faridkot. nary as well as dasti notices issued 06 times have been received back used to accept notice’, which is a being decided in his absence. petitioner, inter alia, submits as nized marriage on 10.01.2017 ites and Ceremonies. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-584-202 4. allowed and as ‘Jagseer 2025 -2- ii) 02 children i.e. one son around 07 years and Presently, both the chil custody of the petitioner iii) Due to matrimonial disco residing separately. iv) One case bearing No. Section 144 of BNSS, 2 filed by the petitioner-wi District Courts, Faridkot v) At present the petitioner residing at her parenta distance between the petitioner and place of Bathinda is about 55 kilo it is difficult for her to the case from Faridkot children. vi) The petitioner jobless a and she is fully depende aged parents. It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. DMC-156 gseer Singh vs. Ramandeep Kaur’ e son and one girl who are aged s and 1½ years respectively. e children are in the care and er-mother. l discord, both the parties are now No. MNT-125-10-2025 (under SS, 2023) for grant maintenance wife is pending adjudication at ridkot. itioner along with minor children is arental home at Faridkot and the the place of residence of the ce of proceedings at Phul, District kilometers on one side. As such, er to undertake frequent travel for aridkot to Phul along with minor less and has no source of income ependent upon the mercy of her old that the present petition may be 1565-2024 (Annexure P-1) titled ’ pending before the learned RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-584-202 Family Cour competent ju 5. petitioner. gone throug behalf of the 6. sufficient gro established. rendered in Live Law (S held as unde 2025 -3- y Court, Bathinda Camp Court at Phu tent jurisdiction at Farikot. No other argument has bee . I have heard learned counsel for through the case file. I find merit in t the petitioner. Besides the facts as noticed h ent grounds for transfer, the legal posi ished. In this regard, judgment of ed in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Sa aw (SC) 627, is notable, wherein the s under:- “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 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 at Phul be transferred to a Court of s been made on behalf of the sel for the petitioner and carefully in the submissions advanced on iced hereinabove, which constitute al position in such like cases is well t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court .S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 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 itute well ourt 022 has er of or rts rts of eir he of er ce he ch in ise RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-584-202 7. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce allowed, tak should desis 8. aforesaid pr considering the wife, the custody of th health and convenience a male mem her place of travelling ex 2025 -4- common question of fact and la the cases are interdependent, it be tried together by the sa multiplicity in trial of the s decisions.” Further reliance can be placed u vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and r Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC me Court has observed that “w ion, the Courts are required to ration to the convenience of the fem roceedings from one Court to an , taking into consideration their c esist from putting female litigants un Even this Court in number aid principle of law. Accordingly, i ering the transfer of a matrimonial di ife, the Court is to consider the fami y of the minor child, economic condi and earning capacity of the husba nience of the wife i.e. she cannot trave e member of her family, connectivity ace of residence as well as bearing ing expenses. 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 aced upon the judgments in Sumita and Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs ) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble “while deciding the transfer to give more weightage and e female litigants and transfer of o another should ordinarily be eir convenience and the Courts ts under undue hardships.” mber of cases has followed the ngly, it is well settled that while nial dispute/case, at the instance of e family condition of the wife, the condition of the wife, her physical husband and most important the t travel alone without assistance of ctivity of the place to and fro from aring of the litigation charges and in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-584-202 9. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 10. refer the cas the possibilit 11. between the calendar mon 2025 -5- In view of the judgments i.e. i Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) an ) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme riate to allow the present petition ions:- a) The petition bearing (Annexure P-1) titled Ramandeep Kaur’ pendin Court, Bathinda Camp C a Court of competent jur Court at Faridkot. b) The learned District Jud transfer complete record case to District Judge, Fa c) The parties are directed t Judge, Faridkot on 17.06. d) The District Judge, Far petition to the Court of co The concerned Court at Faridk he case before the Mediation and Con ssibility of some amicable settlement b The Court concerned, where en the parties, will accommodate t ar month. s i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), ra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case reme Court, this Court deems it etition, subject to the following earing No. DMC-1565-2024 titled as ‘Jagseer Singh vs. pending before the learned Family amp Court at Phul is transferred to ent jurisdiction i.e. learned Family t Judge, Bathinda is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Faridkot. ected to appear before the District .06.2026. Faridkot will assign the said rt of competent jurisdiction. Faridkot will make all endeavour to d Conciliation Centre for exploring ment between the parties. where the litigation is pending date them with one date in one RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-584-202 12. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 13. 14. 15.05.2026 rishu 2025 -6- I am supported by the decision of this Court in TA No. 1315/2 r; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswind ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Ran The present petition stands disp Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ecisions rendered by a Co-ordinate 315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin aswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet a Rani v Karmajit Singh. disposed of, in the above terms. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.