TA-429-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 230 Pooja Pankaj Saini CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. seeking transfer of Act, 1955 (for short 06.03.2025 before the learned Family Court jurisdiction at 2. under: 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-429 Date of Decision: Versus Pankaj Saini CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Maneesh Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner seeking transfer of petition filed under Section Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) titled as ‘Pankaj Saini before the learned Family Court, Pathankot jurisdiction at Rupnagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner i) Marriage of the petitioner with the solemnized on 04.02.2024 ii) One daughter was born out of the said wedlock 04.01.2025, who is present of petitioner-mother. iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are separately since July, 2024 iv) One case bearing No. MNT125/ (Annexure P-2) under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner adjudication before learned Family Court, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 429-2025 Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Maneesh Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner-wife is Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage bearing No. HMA-126-2025 dated Pankaj Saini vs. Pooja’, pending Pathankot to a Court of competent Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits as Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was 04.02.2024. was born out of the said wedlock on who is presently in the care and custody ue to matrimonial discord the parties are residing since July, 2024. One case bearing No. MNT125/08 of 2025 2) under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner-wife is pending adjudication before learned Family Court, Rupnagar. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-429-2025 3. allowed; and petition (Annexure P learned Family Court, Pathankot jurisdiction at Rupnagar 4. I have heard learned counsel for the the case file. I find petitioner. 5. husband, despite the case having been called twice. petition is being decided in his absence. the respondent has filed reply by way of affidavit da para No. 5 thereof, it is mentioned that respondent to travel to any other place due to the year serious ill of his mother as the respondent has to take care of his mother daily’. said averme 6. constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Court rendered in 2025 -2- v) The distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Rupnagar proceedings filed by the respondent Pathankot is about 220 difficult for her to frequently travel from Pathankot to attend the Court proceedings minor daughter who is approximately 1½ year old. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be and petition bearing No. HMA (Annexure P-4) titled as ‘Pankaj Saini vs. Pooja’, pending before the learned Family Court, Pathankot be transferred jurisdiction at Rupnagar. No other argument has been ma I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the There is no representation on behalf of the respondent husband, despite the case having been called twice. being decided in his absence. Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent has filed reply by way of affidavit da para No. 5 thereof, it is mentioned that respondent to travel to any other place due to the year serious ill of his mother as the respondent has to take care of his mother daily’. said averments are vague and not substantiated by any medical record. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” The distance between place of residence of the Rupnagar and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at 220 Kms. one side. It is very difficult for her to frequently travel from Rupnagar to to attend the Court proceedings along with who is approximately 1½ year old. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be HMA-126-2025 dated 06.03.2025 4) titled as ‘Pankaj Saini vs. Pooja’, pending before the be transferred to a Court of competent No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. petitioner and carefully gone through in the submissions advanced on behalf of the There is no representation on behalf of the respondent- husband, despite the case having been called twice. Accordingly, this Perusal of the record reveals that the respondent has filed reply by way of affidavit dated 19.01.2026 and in para No. 5 thereof, it is mentioned that ‘….it is very difficult for the respondent to travel to any other place due to the year serious ill-health of his mother as the respondent has to take care of his mother daily’. The nts are vague and not substantiated by any medical record. Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove in para 2, which constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” . and carefully gone through in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Accordingly, this Perusal of the record reveals that ted 19.01.2026 and in ‘….it is very difficult for the health The , which constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like Hon’ble Supreme N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-429-2025 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 has held as under: 7. Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237 Supreme Court has observed that 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 allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships 8. aforesaid principle of law. Accordi considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of 2025 -3- 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, is notable, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 s 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 Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceeding 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 decisions.” Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, 2005(12) SCC 237 Supreme Court has observed that “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 , is notable, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court The cardinal principle for exercise of power under il 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 prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under tive 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. 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 in trial of the same issues and conflict of Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Sumita and Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal 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 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 ngly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of , is notable, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court The cardinal principle for exercise of power under il 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 oundness 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 tive 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 s 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 in trial of the same issues and conflict of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-429-2025 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 a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing o travelling expenses. 9. Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate conditions: 10. to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 2025 -4- 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 a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing o travelling expenses. In view of the judgments i.e. Rajani 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. HMA 06.03.2025 (Annexure P Pooja’, pending before the learned Family Court, Pathankot is transferred to a Court jurisdiction at Rupnagar. b) The learned District Judge, transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Rupnagar c) The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Rupnagar on 25.06.2026 d) The District Judge, Rupnagar petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The concerned Court at Rupnagar to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 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 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 In 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 to allow the present petition, subject to the following bearing No. HMA-126-2025 dated 06.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) titled as ‘Pankaj Saini vs. Pooja’, pending before the learned Family Court, Pathankot is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rupnagar. The learned District Judge, Pathankot is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid Rupnagar. The parties are directed to appear before the District .06.2026. Rupnagar will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Rupnagar 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. 2025 dated 4) titled as ‘Pankaj Saini vs. Pooja’, pending before the learned Family Court, of competent RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.26 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-429-2025 11. between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. 12. Bench of this Court in Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and 13. 14. 25.05.2026 rishu 2025 -5- The Court concerned, where the litigation is pending 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. .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 Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, 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 2026.05.26 19:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.