TA-7-2025 IN THE HIG 141 Sandeep Kau Gubinder Sin CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking trans of the Hind DMC/1357/2 Kaur’ pendin at Phul to Camp Court 2. 025 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-7 Date o ep Kaur Versus der Singh M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for t Mr. Mayur Singla, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe transfer of petition filed by responde Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for sh 1357/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as pending before the learned Family C a Court of competent jurisdiction Court at Nabha. Learned counsel for the petition i) The parties were married Rites and Ceremonies. ii) One girl child was born 27.08.2022; and present custody of the petitioner iii) Due to matrimonial disco separately. iv) The petitioner has no so dependent upon her paren ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 7-2025 Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA te for the petitioner. ate for the respondent. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is spondent-husband under Section 9 for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. as ‘Gubinder Singh vs. Sandeep ily Court, Bathinda, Camp Court diction i.e. Family Court, Patiala, etitioner, inter alia, submits that:- arried on 28.11.2021 as per Sikh s born out the said wedlock on resently, she is in the care and tioner-mother. l discord the parties are now living no source of income and is fully r parents. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-7-2025 3. allowed and as ‘Gubinde Court, Bath competent ju 4. opposes the and submits Moreover, th income. In s reply dated the petitione been regular for the respo 5. have heard l case file. I f respondent. 025 -2- v) One case filed by the pet the BNSS, 2023 (Sectio MNT125/75/2024 (Anne Kuar and another vs. G adjudication before the le Camp Court at Nabha. vi) The distance between t petitioner at Nabha, D proceedings at Phul, Di kilometers on one side to undertake frequent tra to Phul along with minor It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. DMC/135 ubinder Singh vs. Sandeep Kaur’ pend Bathinda, Camp Court at Phul be tent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court, Pat Per Contra, learned counsel fo es the submissions advanced by learn bmits that the petitioner-wife is Grad ver, the petitioner has wrongly state In support, learned counsel for peti dated 28.08.2025 submitted by the re titioner is gainfully employed as a Fa egularly filing her Income Tax Retur respondent prays for dismissal of the No other argument has been m eard learned counsel for the parties a ile. I find no merit in the submission dent. he petitioner under Section 144 of Section 125 Cr.P.C.) bearing No. (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Sandeep vs. Gubinder Singh’, is pending the learned Family Court, Patiala een the place of residence of the , District Patiala and place of , District Bhatinda is about 115 side. As such, it is difficult for her ent travel for the case from Nabha minor girl child. that the present petition may be C/1357/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled pending before the learned Family be transferred to a Court of rt, Patiala, Camp Court at Nabha. nsel for the respondent vehemently y learned counsel for the petitioner s Graduate and ETT degree-holder. y stated that she has no source of or petitioner refers to para 3 of the the respondent to demonstrate that s a Fashion Designer and has also Returns. As such, learned counsel of the present petition. een made on behalf of the parties. I rties and carefully gone through the issions advanced on behalf of the I the the RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-7-2025 6. sufficient gro established. rendered in Live Law (S held as unde 7. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce 025 -3- 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 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 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 iced hereinabove, which constitute al position in such like cases is well t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court .S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 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 itute well ourt 022 has er of or rts rts of eir he of er ce he ch in ise in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-7-2025 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 9. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 025 -4- , 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. In view of the judgments i.e. Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) an ) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme riate to allow the present petition ions:- a) The petition filed by the No. DMC/1357/2024 ( ‘Gubinder Singh vs. San the learned Family Cour Phul is transferred jurisdiction i.e. Family C Nabha. b) The learned District Jud transfer complete record case to District Judge, Pa c) The parties are directed t Judge, Patiala on 19.06.2 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 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 y the respondent-husband bearing 024 (Annexure P-1) titled as Sandeep Kaur’ pending before Court, Bathinda, Camp Court at ed to a Court of competent ily Court, Patiala, Camp Court at ct Judge, Bathinda is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Patiala. ected to appear before the District .06.2026. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-7-2025 10. refer the cas the possibilit 11. between the calendar mon 12. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 13. 14. 18.05.2026 rishu 025 -5- d) The District Judge, Pa petition to the Court of co The concerned Court at Patial 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. 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 Patiala will assign the said rt of competent jurisdiction. Patiala 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 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 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.