IN TH 203 Arshdeep Maninder CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU 1. transfer of of the Hi “Maninder in the Cour of compete no one is ap and 20.2.2 Accordingl 2. i) TA-1386-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Transfer Application No Date of decision :-14.05 deep Kaur Versus inder Raj Singh AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent despi HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed fer of the petition filed by respondent he Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for ninder Raj Singh vs. Arshdeep Kaur” e Court of Principal Judge, Family Co mpetent jurisdiction at Rajpura, Distri Though notice has been served ne is appearing on his behalf for the las 20.2.2026. Today also, nobody is p rdingly, this petition is being decided Learned counsel for the applic That the parties were married to Sikh rites and rituals. 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH ion No.1386 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent E NIDHI GUPTA vocate t despite service. filed by applicant-wife is for ndent-husband under Section 13 (for short ‘the Act’) titled Kaur” (Annexure P-1) pending ily Court, Ludhiana to a Court District Patiala. served upon the respondent but the last two dates i.e. 14.1.2026 y is present to represent him. cided in his absence. applicant has contended :- arried on 27.11.2017 according VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) 3. transfer of 4. 5. constitute s such like c judgment TA-1386-2025 (O & M) That two children i.e. one g years and second is male chi were born out of this wedloc custody of the applicant. iii) That the applicant-wife is li respondent-husband and livin mercy at Rajpura, District Pati iv) That the applicant is unemplo income and totally dependent respondent-husband is not towards maintenance. That during pendency of Application, an application u has been filed by the app consideration in the Co jurisdiction at Rajpura, Distric vi) That the distance between p applicant-wife i.e. Rajpura, Di of proceedings under Section respondent-husband, pending Family Court, Ludhiana, is ab side. vii) That there is no proficient ma the applicant, who can accom proceedings at Ludhiana. It is inter alia on these groun fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab I have heard learned counsel fo Besides the facts as noti titute sufficient grounds for transfer, like cases as the present one, is well ment of the Hon’ble Supreme Co 2 one girl child who is aged six le child who is about 2.5 years edlock and are in the care and e is living separately from the living with her parents at their ct Patiala. nemployed, having no source of endent upon her parents and the not paying anything to her of the present Transfer tion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. e applicant, which is pending Courts having competent District Patiala. een place of residence of the ura, District Patiala and the place ection 13 of the Act, filed by the nding before the Principal Judge, a, is about 81 kilometers on one nt male member in the family of accompany her to the Court of grounds that applicant prays for ra 1 above. nsel for the applicant. noticed hereinabove, which nsfer, even the legal position in s well established. In this regard, e Court rendered in N.C.V. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Aishwarya 627, where 6. “Sumita S Kishor Pa wherein th deciding th weightage litigants an should ord convenienc litigants un 7. aforesaid p TA-1386-2025 (O & M) warya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sh wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h “9. The cardinal principle for ex section 24 of the Code of Civil Pro justice should demand the transfe other proceeding. In matrimonial m are called upon to consider the ple have to take into consideration the both the parties, the social strata behavioural pattern, their standa marriage and subsequent thereto a both the parties in eking out the whose protective umbrella the sustenance to life. Given the pr paradigm in the Indian society, g convenience which must be look transfer. 10. Further, when two or more pro different Courts between the sam common question of fact and law, in the cases are interdependent, should be tried together by the sam multiplicity in trial of the same decisions.” Further reliance can be place ita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 20 or Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pard ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ing the transfer application, the Court htage and consideration to the co nts and transfer of legal proceedings ld ordinarily be allowed, taking enience and the Courts should de nts under undue hardships.” Even this Court in number o said principle of law. Accordingly, i 3 hik Sha,” 2022 Live Law (SC) ourt has held as under:- for exercise of power under il Procedure is that the ends of transfer of the suit, appeal or onial matters, wherever Courts the plea of transfer, the Courts on the economic soundness of strata of the spouses and their standard of life prior to the ereto and the circumstances of ut their livelihood and under la they are seeking their the prevailing socioeconomic iety, generally, it is the wife's looked at while considering ore proceedings are pending in he same parties which raise d law, and when the decisions dent, it is desirable that they the same Judge so as to avoid same issues and conflict of e placed upon the judgments in ”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, ourt has observed that “while Courts are required to give more he convenience of the female dings from one Court to another aking into consideration their ld desist from putting female mber of cases has followed the gly, it is well settled that while VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document considering of the wife the custody physical h important t without ass the place to the litigatio 8. i.e. Sumita (supra) and Supreme C petition, su 9. endeavour TA-1386-2025 (O & M) idering the transfer of a matrimonial d e wife, the Court is to consider the fam ustody of the minor child, economic ical health and earning capacity o rtant the convenience of the wife i.e out assistance of a male member of h lace to and fro from her place of resid itigation charges and travelling expens In view of the facts mentioned umita Singh’s case (supra), Rajan ra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (sup eme Court, this Court deems it appro ion, subject to the following conditions a) The petition filed by r Section 13 of Act, beari as “Maninder Raj Si pending in the Court o Court, Ludhiana is tr competent jurisdiction a b) The ld. District Judge transfer complete re aforesaid case to Distric c) The parties are direct District & Sessions Judg d) The District Judge, Pa petition to the Court of c The concerned Court at Dis avour to refer the case before the M 4 onial dispute/case, at the instance the family condition of the wife, nomic condition of the wife, her city of the husband and most ife i.e. she cannot travel alone er of her family, connectivity of f residence as well as bearing of xpenses. ntioned above and the judgments Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case se (supra) passed by the Hon’ble appropriate to allow the present ditions:- d by respondent husband under , bearing HMA/1009/2025 titled aj Singh vs. Arshdeep Kaur, ourt of Principal Judge, Family is transferred to a Court of ction at Rajpura, District Patiala. Judge, Ludhiana is directed to record pertaining to the District Judge, Patiala. directed to appear before the ns Judge, Patiala on 16.6.2026. Patiala will assign the said urt of competent jurisdiction. District Patiala will make all the Mediation and Conciliation VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Centre for between th 10. between th calendar m 11. ordinate Be Nitin Tal Gurvinder Karmajit S 12. disposed o appear des in order to Patiala on 1 the respond Memo of P Judges con present in t May 14, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo TA-1386-2025 (O & M) re for exploring the possibility of s een the parties. The Court concerned, where een the parties, will accommodate th dar month. I am supported by the deci ate Bench of this Court in TA No. 13 Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 20 vinderjeet Singh; and TA No. 132 ajit Singh. As already noticed above, s sed of in the absence of the respond ar despite service, despite that, in the der to ensure appearance of the parties la on 16.6.2026, it is directed that a co espondent through registered post at hi o of Parties, besides sending a copy o es concerned through e-mail. Applic nt in the Court, is directed to ensure h Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 5 y of some amicable settlement where the litigation is pending date them with one date in one e decisions rendered by a Co- 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v f 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v . 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v ove, since the petition is being spondent as he has opted not to in these peculiar circumstances, parties before the District Judge, at a copy of this order be sent to st at his address mentioned in the copy of this order to the District Applicant through her counsel, sure her appearance accordingly. if any, stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.18 19.00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document