TA-1243-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 106 Jasdeep Kaur Amit Dhillon and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-10441 with the application is taken on record. TA-1243-2025 1. seeking transfer of petition Section 12(1)(C) bearing No. vs. Jasdeep Kaur and another Jalandhar to Division, Hoshiarpur. 2. 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-1243 Date of Decision: Jasdeep Kaur Versus Amit Dhillon and another CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ashu Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for respondent NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 10441-CII-2026 Application is allowed, as prayed for. Reply on behalf of contesting respondent No. 1 filed along with the application is taken on record. 2025 By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner transfer of petition filed by respondent 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 bearing No. DMC/932/2023 (Annexure P- Jasdeep Kaur and another’ pending bef to a Court of competent jurisdiction Division, Hoshiarpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner i) Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 28.03.20 marriage of the petitioner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1243-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ashu Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Application is allowed, as prayed for. behalf of contesting respondent No. 1 filed along By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner-wife is filed by respondent No. 1-husband under Hindu Marriage Act,1955(for short-‘the Act’) -4) titled as ‘Sh. Amit Dhillon pending before the learned Family Court, ourt of competent jurisdiction at Garhshankar, Sessions Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that:- Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was 28.03.2016. It was the second marriage of the petitioner. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1243-2025 (O&M) 3. allowed and petition Dhillon vs. 2025 (O&M) -2- ii) One son was born out of the said wedlock on 03.06.2017 who is presently in the care and custody of the petitioner-mother. iii) Due to matrimonial discord separately since March, 2023 iv) The petitioner has no source of income dependent upon her parents. v) There are 02 cases filed by the petitioner filed by the respondent adjudication before the Courts at Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur respondent-husband is not putting in appearance, details of which are as under: (a) COMI/15/2023 under Sections 313, 323, 498 A, 406 and 342 IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Garhshankar; (b) Complaint filed by the petitioner under 12 of the provisions of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing COMA/7/2023. (c) Petition bearing No. GW/11/2025 filed by the respondent-husband under Sections 7,10, 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, is pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Hoshiarpur. vi) The distance between the place of residence of the petitioner at Garhshankar Jalandhar is about 61 such, it is difficult for her to undertake frequent travel for the case from Garhshankar to petitioner’s father and brother(s there is no one in the family Garhshankar to Jalandhar to attend the Court proceedings. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be allowed and petition DMC/932/2023 (Annexure P vs. Jasdeep Kaur and another’ pending before the learned One son was born out of the said wedlock on who is presently in the care and custody mother. matrimonial discord the parties are living March, 2023. The petitioner has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her parents. cases filed by the petitioner and 01 case filed by the respondent-husband pending adjudication before the Courts at Garhshankar, Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur, in some of which the husband is not putting in appearance, details of which are as under:- COMI/15/2023 under Sections 313, 323, 498- A, 406 and 342 IPC pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Complaint filed by the petitioner under Section the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing COMA/7/2023. Petition bearing No. GW/11/2025 filed by the husband under Sections 7,10, 12 of an and Wards Act, is pending adjudication before the learned Family Court The distance between the place of residence of the Garhshankar and place of proceedings at 61 kilometers on one side. As such, it is difficult for her to undertake frequent travel Garhshankar to Jalandhar as, the petitioner’s father and brother(s) are working. Thus, there is no one in the family to accompany her from to Jalandhar to attend the Court It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be DMC/932/2023 (Annexure P-4) titled as ‘Sh. Amit ’ pending before the learned RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1243-2025 (O&M) Family Court jurisdiction 4. husband vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-wife 932/2023 (Annexure P 2023 and the petitioner has put in appearance in the said petition on 22.08.2023; and the present petition is at the Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Finder Doc Id # 1888057, stage, transfer pet 5. have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. 6. respondent. respondent is distinguishable on the facts and law. learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is taking care of the minor son born out of the wedlock of the parties. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has no independent source of income. 7. constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, cases is well established. Court rendered in 2025 (O&M) -3- Family Court, Jalandhar be transferred to jurisdiction at Garhshankar, Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the wife and submits that the present petition bearing No. DMC/ 932/2023 (Annexure P-4) has been filed by the respondent in the year 2023 and the petitioner has put in appearance in the said petition on 22.08.2023; and the present petition is at the Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta: Law Finder Doc Id # 1888057, to submit that where the trial is at the advance stage, transfer petition filed by the wife is not liable to be allowed. No other argument has been made on behalf of the parties. have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on the facts and law. learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is taking care of the minor son born out of the wedlock of the parties. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has no independent source of income. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, cases is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. SaravanaKarthik Sha,” , Jalandhar be transferred to a Court of competent at Garhshankar, Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur. learned counsel appearing for the respondent- vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the and submits that the present petition bearing No. DMC/ 4) has been filed by the respondent in the year 2023 and the petitioner has put in appearance in the said petition on 22.08.2023; and the present petition is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Abhilasha Gupta vs. Harimohan Gupta: Law to submit that where the trial is at the advance ition filed by the wife is not liable to be allowed. No other argument has been made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable on the facts and law. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is single handedly taking care of the minor son born out of the wedlock of the parties. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has no independent source of income. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove in para 2, which constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. SaravanaKarthik Sha,” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the It is not disputed by taking care of the minor son born out of the wedlock of the parties. It is which in such like In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. SaravanaKarthik Sha,” RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1243-2025 (O&M) 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 has held as under: 8. Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Babulal Supreme Court has observed that application, the Courts are required to give more weightage consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants un 9. aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case 2025 (O&M) -4- 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is notable, wherein has held as under:- “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” Further reliance can be placed upon the Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237 Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants un Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or imonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the ociety, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Sumita and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.” Even this Court in number of cases has followed the aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or imonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the ociety, generally, it is the wife's convenience which Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1243-2025 (O&M) the wife, the Court is to consid custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. 10. Rajani Kishor (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions: 11. to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 2025 (O&M) -5- the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. In view of the judgments i.e. Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) and (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions:- a) The petition bearing No. DMC/932/2023 (Annexure P-4) titled as ‘Sh. Amit Dhillon another’ pending before the learned Family Court, Jalandhar to a Court of competent jurisdiction Garhshankar, Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur. b) The learned District Judge, transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Hoshiarpur c) The parties are directed to appear before the Judge, Hoshiarpur on 24 d) The District Judge, Hoshiarpur petition to the Court of competent The concerned Court at Hoshiarpur to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. er the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and n view of the judgments i.e. Sumita Singh’s case (supra), case (supra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following bearing No. DMC/932/2023 (Annexure h. Amit Dhillon vs. Jasdeep Kaur and ’ pending before the learned Family Court, ourt of competent jurisdiction at Garhshankar, Sessions Division, Hoshiarpur. District Judge, Jalandhar is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Hoshiarpur. The parties are directed to appear before the District 24.06.2026. Hoshiarpur will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Hoshiarpur will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-1243-2025 (O&M) 12. between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. 13. Bench of this Court in Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Singh; and 14. 15. 21.05.2026 rishu 2025 (O&M) -6- The Court concerned, where the between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co Bench of this Court in TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet ; and TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh. The present petition stands disposed of, Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21.05.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one I am supported by the decisions rendered by a Co-ordinate TA No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet TA No. 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v Karmajit Singh. disposed of, in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.