TA-1518-20 IN THE HIG 107 Mandeep Ka Anupam Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking tran 13 of the H HMA/1734/2 Mandeep Ka the Family C 2. under: 2025 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-15 Date o eep Kaur Versus m Singh Badhan M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate for th Mr. GS Jagpal, Advocate for the I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe g transfer of petition filed by respon Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for s /1734/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as eep Kaur’ pending before the learned mily Court at Rupnagar. Learned counsel for the petitio i) Marriage of the petition solemnized on 19.02.201 ii) One son was born out 03.04.2021 who is presen of petitioner-mother. iii) Due to matrimonial disc separately since 04.07.20 ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1518-2025 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA for the petitioner. for the respondent. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is espondent-husband under Section (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. ed as ‘Anupal Singh Badhan vs. earned Family Court, Ludhiana to petitioner, inter alia, submits as etitioner with the respondent was 2.2017. rn out of the said wedlock on presently in the care and custody al discord the parties are residing .07.2021. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 2025 -2- iv) There are 03 cases filed b are pending adjudicat Rupnagar; which are as u (a) Petition under Se (125 Cr.P.C.) bear (Annexure P-7) Family Court, Rup (b) Petition under pro Women from Dom bearing No. COMA pending before the Ist Class, Rupnaga (c) Criminal com COMA/35/2025 (A Sections 3(5), 85, 2023 pending be Magistrate Ist Clas v) The petitioner has no residing with her old age depended upon her. vi) The petitioner is suffer ailments prior to the b undergo surgery f endometriomas cysts in t also undergoing speech th mild autism. vii) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. Rup proceedings filed by t Ludhiana is about 80 ki very difficult for her filed by the petitioner-wife which judication at District Courts, re as under:- er Section 144 of BNNS, 2023 .) bearing No. MNT125/135/2024 pending before the learned t, Rupnagar; provisions of the Protection of m Domestic Violence Act, 2005 COMA/111/2024 (Annexure P-8) re the learned Judicial Magistrate pnagar; and complaint bearing No. 025 (Annexure P-9) filed under ), 85, 15(2), 316(2) of the BNSS, ng before the learned Judicial st Class, Rupnagar. s no source of income and is ld aged widow mother and is fully suffering from various medical the birth of child and had to y for adenomyosis and sts in the ovary. The minor son is eech therapy and is suffering from een place of residence of the . Rupnagar and the place of by the respondent-husband at 80 kilometers on one side. It is her to frequently travel from RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 3. allowed; and as ‘Anupal S Family Cour 4. the responde filed similar 5. petitioner-wi however, it s 6. have heard l case file. I f respondent. 7. sufficient gro established. rendered in Live Law (S held as unde 2025 -3- Rupnagar to Ludhian proceedings. It is accordingly, prayed that and petition bearing No. HMA/173 upal Singh Badhan vs. Mandeep Kau y Court, Ludhiana be transferred to th Per Contra, the only argument spondent-husband is that previously imilar transfer petitioner which has bee Learned counsel for the petit wife had made all efforts to rec er, it seems that the same is not possib 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 ed in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Sa aw (SC) 627, is notable, wherein the nder:- “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 dhiana to attend the Court that the present petition may be A/1734/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled p Kaur’ pending before the learned the Family Court at Rupnagar. ument raised by learned counsel for iously also the petitioner-wife had has been dismissed as withdrawn. e petitioner has clarified that the to reconcile with the respondent, possible. 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 .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 I the the itute well ourt 022 has er of or rts rts of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 8. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce allowed, tak should desis 9. aforesaid pr considering the wife, the custody of health and convenience a male mem 2025 -4- 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 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 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 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 eir he of er ce he ch in ise in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 her place of travelling ex 10. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 11. to refer the exploring the 12. between the calendar mon 2025 -5- 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 (Annexure P-1) titled as Mandeep Kaur’ pending Court, Ludhiana is transf Court at Rupnagar. b) The learned District Jud transfer complete record case to District Judge, Ru c) The parties are directed t Judge, Rupnagar on 22.06 d) The District Judge, Rup petition to the Court of co The concerned Court at Rupna the case before the Mediation a ing the possibility of some amicable se The Court concerned, where en the parties, will accommodate t ar month. 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 earing No. HMA/1734/2024 led as ‘Anupal Singh Badhan vs. ending before the learned Family transferred to the learned Family ct Judge, Ludhiana is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Rupnagar. ected to appear before the District 22.06.2026. Rupnagar will assign the said rt of competent jurisdiction. Rupnagar will make all endeavour tion and Conciliation Centre for able settlement between the parties. where the litigation is pending date them with one date in one RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1518-20 13. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 14. 15. 20.05.2026 rishu 2025 -6- 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 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 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.