TA-1102-20 IN THE HIG 145 Seema Rani Naveen Kum CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking tran 12 and 13 of No. HMA/31 Rani’ pendin of competen 2. 2025 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-11 Date o Rani Versus n Kumar M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. RS Kadian, Advocate for th Mr. Jatinder Nagpal, Advocate I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe transfer of petition filed by respond of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 MA/314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled pending before the learned Family Co petent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court Learned counsel for the petition i) The parties were married Rites and Ceremonies. ii) No child was born out of iii) Due to matrimonial dis separately since 09.12.20 iv) The petitioner has no so dependent upon her paren v) There are 05 cases filed adjudication before the which are as under:- ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1102-2025 Date of Decision: 18.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA e for the petitioner. ocate for the respondent. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is espondent-husband under Sections 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing as ‘Naveen Kumar vs. Seema ily Court, Kurukshetra to a Court at Sirsa. etitioner, inter alia, submits that:- arried on 23.04.2024 as per Hindu out of the said wedlock. ial discord the parties are living .12.2024. no source of income and is fully r parents. s filed by the petitioner pending e the Courts at Sirsa details of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1102-20 3. allowed and ‘Naveen Ku Court, Kuruk at Sirsa. 4. opposes the and submits pregnancy respondent 2025 -2- (a) Case No. CHI/641/ 43 dated 30.04.202 323, 406, 498-A an of CJM, Sirsa (Ann (b) Case No. CRM/23 CJM, Sirsa (Annex (c) Case No. COMA/9 12, 17 to 20, 22 an Women from Dom (Annexure P-6). (d) Case No. MNT12 125 Cr.P.C. pendin Court, Sirsa (Anne (e) Case No. HMA/95 Act before the le (Annexure P-8). vi) The distance between t petitioner at Sirsa an Kurukshetra is about 21 such, it is difficult for he for the case from Sirsa to It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. HMA/314/ en Kumar vs. Seema Rani’ pending Kurukshetra to a Court of competent Per Contra, learned counsel fo es the submissions advanced by learn ubmits that the petitioner has medi ncy without informing the responde dent-husband had submitted a compla I/641/2025 arising out of FIR No. .04.2025 registered under Sections A and 506 IPC before the Court a (Annexure P-4). RM/236/2026 pending before the Annexure P-5). MA/94/2025 filed under Sections , 22 and 23 of the the Protection of m Domestic Violence Act, 2005 NT125/236/2025 under Section pending before the learned Family (Annexure P-7). A/952/2025 under Section of the the learned Family Court, Sirsa een the place of residence of the and place of proceedings at 215 kilometers on one side. As for her to undertake frequent travel irsa to Kurukshetra. that the present petition may be /314/2025 (Annexure P-2) titled as ending before the learned Family petent jurisdiction i.e. Family Court nsel for the respondent vehemently y learned counsel for the petitioner medically terminated 04 months spondent, in respect of which the omplaint before the Civil Surgeon, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1102-20 Sirsa pursua dated 15.07.2 5. that all the je counsel adm pending at S 6. have heard l case file. I f respondent. 7. sufficient gro established. rendered in 2025 -3- pursuant to which the respondent had 7.2025, which reads as under:- “Sender: Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, Recipient: Naveen Kumar S/o Ram D r/o Didar Nagar, Thanes Letter No. MTP/2025/190 Date Subject: Regarding inquiry into With reference to this office let dated 23.06.2025, the subject written to you in continuation. was received at the office of C hereby given another opportun and assist in the investigating you are directed to be present a Sirsa on Monday, 21.07.2025 other relevant documents perta requested to bring those along a Further, learned counsel for the l the jewellery has been returned to the admits that respondent is putting g at Sirsa. 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 nt had been summoned vide letter am Diya anesar, Kurukshetra. ated:15/07/2025 into foeticide. e letter No. PNDT/2025/MTP/157 bject mentioned above is being ion. A complaint submitted by you of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa. You are ortunity to record your statement ting regarding this matter. Thus, ent at the office of Civil Surgeon, 025 at 2:30 PM. If you have any pertaining to this matter, you are ong as well. Sd/-15/7/2025 Civil Surgeon, Sirsa.” for the respondent-husband submits to the petitioner. However, learned utting in appearance in 03 cases 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 I the the itute well ourt 022 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1102-20 Live Law (S held as unde 8. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce allowed, tak should desis 9. aforesaid pr considering 2025 -4- 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 , 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 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 nial dispute/case, at the instance of has er of or rts rts of eir he of er ce 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-1102-20 the wife, the custody of th health and convenience a male mem her place of travelling ex 10. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 11. refer the cas the possibilit 2025 -5- 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. HMA/314/2025 ( ‘Naveen Kumar vs. Seem learned Family Court, Ku Court of competent juris Sirsa. b) The learned District Judg transfer complete record case to District Judge, Pa c) The parties are directed t Judge, Sirsa on 19.06.202 d) The District Judge, Sirsa to the Court of competent The concerned Court at Sirsa he case before the Mediation and Con ssibility of some amicable settlement b 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 25 (Annexure P-2) titled as Seema Rani’ pending before the urt, Kurukshetra is transferred to a t jurisdiction i.e. Family Court at t Judge, Kurukshetra is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Patiala. ected to appear before the District 06.2026. Sirsa will assign the said petition petent jurisdiction. Sirsa will make all endeavour to d Conciliation Centre for exploring ment between the parties. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 09:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1102-20 12. between the calendar mon 13. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 14. 15. 18.05.2026 rishu 2025 -6- 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 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.