TA-684-202 IN THE HIG 121 Parminder K Kulwinder S CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. transfer of th the Hindu HMA/186/20 Parminder K Chandigarh 2. 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-68 Date o nder Kaur Versus nder Singh M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr.Yogesh Bansal, Legal Aid C I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition filed b r of the petition filed by respondent indu Marriage Act, 1955 (for sho 186/2026 (Annexure P-1) titled nder Kaur’, pending in the Court of Pr igarh to a Court of competent jurisdict Learned counsel for the petition i) The parties were married Sikh Rites and Ceremoni ii) Two children i.e. on son daughter aged about 13 said wedlock. The major and custody of the petitio daughter is in the care an husband. iii) Due to matrimonial disc separately since 02.03.20 iv) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. Fateh proceedings filed by t Chandigarh is about 50 very difficult for her Fatehgarh Sahib to Chan proceedings. ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 684-2026 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 .…Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA l Aid Counsel for the petitioner. iled by the petitioner-wife is for dent-husband under Section 13 of r short ‘the Act’) bearing No. as ‘Kulwinder Singh vs. t of Principal Judge, Family Court, risdiction at Fatehgarh Sahib. etitioner, inter alia, submits that :- arried on 28.08.2002 according to emonies. n son aged about 23 years and one ut 13 years were born out of the major son is presently in the care petitioner-wife; whereas the minor are and custody of the respondent- al discord the parties are residing .03.2018. een place of residence of the Fatehgarh Sahib and the place of by the respondent-husband at 50 kilometers on one side. It is her to frequently travel from Chandigarh to attend the Court RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 19:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-684-202 3. allowed and ‘Kulwinder S Judge, Fami Fatehgarh Sa 4. have heard l the case file. petitioner. 5. custody of handedly, ta the parties. N needs of m physical we living with h earning his Teacher; and record furthe petition und 2026 -2- v) The petitioner is residing parental house and curre Teacher. vi) One suit filed by the pet Rule 1 CPC bearing No. P-3) for recovery of allowance is pending adj Family Court at Fatehgar It is accordingly, prayed that d and petition bearing No. HMA/186/ inder Singh vs. Parminder Kaur’, pend , Family Court, Chandigarh to a Cour arh Sahib. No other argument has been ma eard learned counsel for the petitione se file. I find no merit in the submissio Admittedly, 13-year-old minor y of her father/respondent herein. dly, taking care of the minor daughte rties. Not only does the respondent ha minor daughter, but is also resp al welfare as she is at a sensitive a with her 23 year old son who is grow g his livelihood. Moreover, the petiti and has admitted that she is earn further reveals that the respondent/hu n under Section 9 of the Act for Re esiding along with her son at her d currently is working as Private he petitioner under Order XXXIII g No. INDIG/11/2025 (Annexure ry of arrears of maintenance ng adjudication before the learned tehgarh Sahib. that the present petition may be /186/2026 (Annexure P-1) titled as ’, pending in the Court of Principal Court of competent jurisdiction at een made on behalf of the parties. I titioner and carefully gone through missions advanced on behalf of the minor daughter is in the care and erein. The respondent is single- aughter born out of the wedlock of ent have to provide for the material so responsible for her mental and itive age; whereas the petitioner is grown up, major, and is capable of petitioner is working as a Private is earning ₹7000/- per month. The /husband had previously filed a for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and k of erial and r is le of The a ghts RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 19:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-684-202 which was d divorce petit which was (Annexure P parties, the HMA/186/20 Chandigarh. 6. respondent, her major so the petitione Kms. to Cha only on the d out to trans pendency of transfer. 7. of transfer e However, in Court, as we which may SrijitDas’ w dismissed th husband. Re Court where 2026 -3- was decided in his favour. Thereafte e petition under Section 13 of the Ac was dismissed as withdrawn vi re P-2). As the matter could not , the respondent had again fi /186/2026 (Annexure P-1) before igarh. From the facts noted above, dent, the petitioner has no onerous re ajor son at her parental house. No cog titioner as to why she is unable to tr Chandigarh to attend to the proceed n the dates of hearing. In this situation transfer the case from Chandigarh ncy of other case at Fatehgarh Sahi This Court is well aware of the sfer emanating from matrimonial disp ver, in certain similar cases as the pres as well as this Court have refused rel may be referred to is: (2006) 9 SC ’ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court sed the wife’s application seeking tra Reference in this regard may also where, in similar circumstances this ereafter the respondent had filed a the Act bearing No. DMC/02/2023 n vide order dated 14.12.2024 ld not be reconciled between the in filed petition bearing No. efore the learned Family Court, above, it is clear that unlike the responsibility and is living with o cogent reason has been given by e to travel the short distance of 50 roceedings and that too not daily but tuation, no equitable ground is made digarh to Fatehgarh Sahib. Mere Sahib is not sufficient reason to of the preponderance of law in cases ial disputes is in favour of the wife. e present one, the Hon’ble Supreme sed relief to the wife. One such case ) 9 SCC 197 ‘Anindita Das Vs. Court under similar circumstances ing transfer of petition filed by the y also be made to two cases of this s this Court had dismissed transfer ed a 023 024 the No. ourt, the with n by f 50 but ade ere n to ases ife. eme case Vs. nces the this sfer RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 19:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-684-202 applications Smt. Akhw 2019 Nisha 8. present case finding no m 9. 19.05.2026 rishu 2026 -4- ations filed on behalf of the wife. Th Akhwinder Kaur Vs. Sh. Gurpreet isha alias Manisha vs. Amarveer Y Accordingly, in view of the fa t case as noted above, as also the prec g no merit in this petition, the same is h Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable fe. These are: TA no. 126 of 2018 rpreet Singh; and TA No. 299 of eer Yadav. the facts and circumstances of the he precedents of Case law as above, me is hereby dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 018 9 of the ove, RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.21 19:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.