TA-1367-20 IN THE HIG 133 Geetanjali B Anish Babba CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking tran 13 of the HMA-870- Babbar, Adv Family Cour 2. under: 2025 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-13 Date o njali Babbar Versus Babbar M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe g transfer of petition filed by respon Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for s -2024 dated 30.09.2024 (Annex r, Advocate vs. Dr. Geetanjali Babbar y Court, Chandigarh to the Family Cou Learned counsel for the petitio i) The parties solemnized according to Hindu Rites ii) Two daughters i.e. one born out of the said wed in the care and custody iii) Due to matrimonial dis separately since 27.09.20 ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1367-2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ate for the petitioner. vocate for the respondent. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is espondent-husband under Section (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Anish abbar’ pending before the learned ly Court at SAS Nagar (Mohali). petitioner, inter alia, submits as nized marriage on 26.11.2005 Rites and Ceremonies.. . one major and one minor were id wedlock and both are presently tody of the petitioner-mother. ial discord the parties are living .09.2024. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1367-20 2025 -2- iv) No doubt, the petitione Chandigarh. However, th SAS Nagar (Mohali) tha the petitioner is working University at Moahli, the for her to go to the D (Mohali) rather than to D v) Respondent-husband is District Courts, Chandig Even father of the resp petitioner is also a prac Courts, Chandigarh for m the petitioner apprehends vi) There are 02 cases filed b are pending adjudicatio Nagar (Mohali) and th appearing in both the said (a) Petition under pro Women from Dom bearing No. COMA titled as ‘Dr. Ge Babbar and others (b) Petition under Sect Cr.P.C.) bearing N P-2) titled as ‘ Babbar’. vi) The respondent has a pe both the aforementioned the District Courts, S titioner is resident of Sector-63, ver, the said residence is closer to li) than to Chandigarh. Moreover, orking as Guest Lecturer in Amity , therefore, it is more convenient the District Courts, SAS Nagar District Courts at Chandigarh. d is a practicing Advocate at handigarh for the past 20 years. e respondent/father-in-law of the a practicing Advocate at District for more than 40 years. As such, hends threat to her life. filed by the petitioner-wife which ication at District Courts, SAS nd the respondent is regularly he said cases; which are as under:- provisions of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 COMA/105/2024 (Annexure P-1) r. Geetanjali Babbar vs. Anish others’; and er Section 144 of BNNS, 2023 (125 ring No. MNT/64/2024 (Annexure as ‘Geetanjali Babbar vs. Anish s a permanent home at Mohali and tioned 02 cases are pending before rts, SAS Nagar (Mohali) since RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1367-20 3. allowed and (Annexure P to the Family 4. opposes the and submits that the pe (Annexure P the Mediatio could not be 5. have heard l case file. I f respondent. 6. sufficient gro established. 2025 -3- 29.07.2024. Therefore th by the petitioner-wife petition (Annexure P 30.09.2024. vii) The petitioner-wife is s both the daughters born parties. It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. HMA xure P-3) be transferred from the learn Family Court at SAS Nagar (Mohali). Per Contra, learned counsel fo es the submissions advanced by learn bmits that the petitioner is resident o he petitioner has put in appearanc xure P-3). Learned counsel submits th ediation and Conciliation Centre, Distr not be settled. No other argument has been m eard learned counsel for the parties a ile. I find no merit in the submission dent. Besides the facts as noticed h ent grounds for transfer, the legal posi ished. In this regard, judgment of fore the said cases have been filed wife prior to filing of present re P-3) by the respondent on fe is single handedly taking care of rs born out of the wedlock of the that the present petition may be HMA-870-2024 dated 30.09.2024 e learned Family Court, Chandigarh hali). nsel for the respondent vehemently y learned counsel for the petitioner dent of Chandigarh. It is submitted earance in the aforesaid petition mits that the matter was referred to , District Courts, Chandigarh, but it een made on behalf of the parties. I rties and carefully gone through the issions advanced on behalf of the iced hereinabove, which constitute al position in such like cases is well t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court I the the itute well ourt RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1367-20 rendered in Live Law (S held as unde 7. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce allowed, tak should desis 8. aforesaid pr 2025 -4- 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 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 .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 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 022 has er of or rts rts of eir he of er ce he ch in ise in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1367-20 considering the wife, the custody of th health and convenience a male mem her place of travelling ex 9. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 2025 -5- 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. 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 N 30.09.2024 (Annexure P Advocate vs. Dr. Gee respondent-husband pen Family Court, Chandig Family Court at SAS Nag b) The learned District Judg transfer complete record case to District Judge, SA c) The parties are directed t Judge, SAS Nagar (Moha 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 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 ring No. HMA-870-2024 dated ure P-3) titled as ‘Anish Babbar, . Geetanjali Babbar’, filed by d pending before the learned handigarh is transferred to the S Nagar, Mohali. t Judge, Chandigarh is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid SAS Nagar (Mohali). ected to appear before the District (Mohali) on 17.06.2026. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1367-20 10. endeavour to for explorin parties. 11. between the calendar mon 12. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 13. 14. 15.05.2026 rishu 2025 -6- d) The District Judge, SAS the said petition to jurisdiction. The concerned Court at SAS N vour to refer the case before the Medi ploring the possibility of some amic The Court concerned, where en the parties, will accommodate t ar month. I am supported by the decision of this Court in TA No. 1315/20 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 SAS Nagar (Mohali) will assign to the Court of competent SAS Nagar (Mohali) will make all Mediation and Conciliation Centre e amicable settlement between the where the litigation is pending date them with one date in one 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 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.