TA-150-202 IN THE HIG 209 Sumanpreet Gurpiar Sing CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking trans of the Hind DMC/00013 vs. Sumanp Bathinda to a 2. under: 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-15 Date o preet Kaur Versus ar Singh M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for Mr. Aayush Goyal, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe g transfer of petition filed by responde Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for sh 0001379/2025 dated 13.10.2025 (Ann umanpreet Kaur’ pending before t to a Court of competent jurisdiction Learned counsel for the petitio i) The parties solemnized way of Anand Karj accor ii) One son was born out 16.02.2024, who is prese of the petitioner-mother. iii) that due to matrimonial d separately since 21.08.20 ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 150-2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ate for the petitioner. cate for the respondent. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is spondent-husband under Section 9 for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Gurpiar fore the learned Family Court, diction at Barnala. petitioner, inter alia, submits as nized marriage on 17.01.2022 by j according to Sikh Rites. rn out of the said wedlock on presently in the care and custody other. onial discord the parties are living .08.2025. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-150-202 3. allowed and (Annexure P a Court of co 2026 -2- iv) There are 02 cases filed b are pending adjudication which are as under:- (a) Petition under Sect of Women from D bearing No. DV/54 as ‘Sumanpreet K before the learne Class, Barnala; (b) Petition under Sect Cr.P.C.) bearing (Annexure P-2) tit another vs. Gurpia Family Court, Barn vi) The distance between t petitioner at Barnala Bathinda is about 65 kilo it is difficult for her to the case from Barnala child. vii) The petitioner jobless an she is dependent upon h is not paying anything to It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. DMC/000 xure P-3) be transferred from the learn rt of competent jurisdiction at Barnala filed by the petitioner-wife which ication at District Courts Barnala er Section 12 of the the Protection rom Domestic Violence Act, 2005 DV/54/2025 (Annexure P-1) titled reet Kaur vs. Gurpiar’ pending learned Judicial Magistrate Ist er Section 144 of BNNS, 2023 (125 earing No. MNT/125/165/2025 2) titled as ‘Sumanpreet Kaur and urpiar’ pending before the learned Barnala. een the place of residence of the and place of proceedings at kilometers on one side. As such, er to undertake frequent travel for to Bathinda along with minor less and has no source of income so pon her relatives as the respondent hing towards maintenance. that the present petition may be /0001379/2025 dated 13.10.2025 e learned Family Court, Bathinda to arnala. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-150-202 4. opposes the and submits kilometers. jobless. In s and 9 of the petitioner is is working a respondent p 5. have heard l case file. I f respondent. 6. constitute su cases is well Court render 2022 Live L has held as u 2026 -3- Per Contra, learned counsel fo es the submissions advanced by learn bmits that the distance between Bat eters. Moreover, the petitioner has s. In support, learned counsel for pet of the reply submitted by the respon ner is running a Boutique. It is, theref rking and the distance is short. As s dent prays for dismissal of the present 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 tute sufficient grounds for transfer, th is well established. In this regard, judg rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A ive Law (SC) 627, is notable, wherei ld as 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 nsel for the respondent vehemently y learned counsel for the petitioner Bathinda to Barnala is only 65 r has wrongly stated that she is petitioner refers to page Nos. 8 respondent to demonstrate that the therefore, submitted that petitioner As such, learned counsel for the resent petition. een made on behalf of the parties. I rties and carefully gone through the issions advanced on behalf of the iced hereinabove in para 2, which sfer, the legal position in such like , judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court ple for exercise of power under ivil Procedure is that the ends of e transfer of the suit, appeal or imonial matters, wherever Courts 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 I the the hich like eme ha,” ourt er of or rts rts of eir he of er ce he RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-150-202 7. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce 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 2026 -4- 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 r 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 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. 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 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 ch in ise in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-150-202 9. Rajani Kish (supra) pass appropriate conditions: 10. refer the cas the possibilit 11. between the calendar mon 2026 -5- In view of the judgments i.e. i Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) an ) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme riate to allow the present petition ions:- a) The petition bearing No. 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) Sumanpreet Kaur’, filed by re before the learned Family Cour a Court of competent jurisdictio at Barnala. b) The learned District Jud transfer complete record pertai District Judge, Barnala. c) The parties are directed Judge, Barnala on 16.06.2026. d) The District Judge, Ba petition to the Court of compete The concerned Court at Barnal 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. 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 g No. DCM/0001379/2025 dated 3) titled as ‘Gurpiar vs. by respondent-husband pending y Court, Bathinda is transferred to isdiction i.e. learned Family Court ict Judge, Bathinda is directed to pertaining to the aforesaid case to ected to appear before the District 026. Barnala will assign the said mpetent jurisdiction. Barnala 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-150-202 12. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 13. 14. 14.05.2026 rishu 2026 -6- 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 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 2026.05.18 19:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.