IN TH 106 Mamta Sh Gauri Sha CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GU 1. wife is for Section 13 Act’) bear Mamta Sh Rohtak to a no one is 25.3.2026, to represen absence. 2. Transfer Application No.1670 of 202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR Transfer Application Date of decision :-22.05 ta Sharma Versus Shankar AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondent despi HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this Transfer Applic is for transfer of the petition filed by r 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage bearing No.DMC/392/2025 titled ta Sharma” (Annexure P-1) pendin to a Court of competent jurisdiction Though notice has been served ne is appearing on his behalf for .2026, 27.4.2026 and 07.5.2026. Toda present him. Accordingly, this petitio Learned counsel for the applic 2025 (O & M) 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH tion No.1670 of 2025 (O & M) .05.2026 …..Applicant …..Respondent E NIDHI GUPTA ocate t despite service. Application filed by applicant- d by respondent-husband under rriage Act,1955 (for short ‘the titled as “Gauri Shankar vs. pending in the Family Court, diction at Panipat. served upon the respondent but f for the last three dates i.e. . Today also, nobody is present petition is being decided in his applicant has contended :- VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 19.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) vii) 3. transfer of 4. 5. position in this regard Transfer Application No.1670 of 202 That the parties were married to Hindu rites and rituals. That two children, one male out of this wedlock on 03.7. born out of the said wedlock, in the care and custody of the a iii) That the applicant-wife is li respondent-husband since 24.1 parents at their mercy at villag iv) That the applicant is unemplo income and totally dependent respondent-husband is not towards maintenance. That the proceedings arising o (a) under Section 1 Women from Dom filed by the applicant-wife, a having competent jurisdiction vi) That the distance between p applicant-wife i.e. Panipat and under Section 13(1)(1-a) respondent-husband, pending Rohtak, is about 120 kilometer vii) That there is no proficient ma the applicant, who can accom proceedings at Rohtak. It is inter alia on these groun fer of the case, as detailed in para 1 ab I have heard learned counsel fo Besides the facts as notice ion in such like cases as the present o regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Su 2025 (O & M) 2 arried on 09.12.2012 according male and one female were born 03.7.2015 and 10.6.2022 were dlock, who are presently residing of the applicant-wife. e is living separately from the ce 24.11.2024 and living with her village Kurana, District Panipat. nemployed, having no source of endent upon her parents and the not paying anything to her ising out of petition :- tion 12 of the Protection of m Domestic Violence Act, 2005; wife, are pending in the Courts iction at Panipat. een place of residence of the pat and the place of proceedings of the Act, filed by the nding before the Family Court, ometers on one side. nt male member in the family of accompany her to the Court of grounds that applicant prays for ra 1 above. nsel for the applicant. noticed hereinabove, the legal esent one, is well established. In ble Supreme Court rendered in VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 19.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document N.C.V. Ais (SC) 627, w 6. “Sumita S Kishor Pa wherein th deciding th weightage litigants an should ord convenienc litigants un 7. aforesaid p Transfer Application No.1670 of 202 V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Kar , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Co “9. The cardinal principle for ex section 24 of the Code of Civil Pro justice should demand the transfe other proceeding. In matrimonial m are called upon to consider the ple have to take into consideration the both the parties, the social strata behavioural pattern, their standa marriage and subsequent thereto a both the parties in eking out the whose protective umbrella the sustenance to life. Given the pr paradigm in the Indian society, g convenience which must be look transfer. 10. Further, when two or more pro different Courts between the sam common question of fact and law, in the cases are interdependent, should be tried together by the sam multiplicity in trial of the same decisions.” Further reliance can be place ita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 20 or Pardeshivs Kishor Babulal Pard ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court h ing the transfer application, the Court htage and consideration to the co nts and transfer of legal proceedings ld ordinarily be allowed, taking enience and the Courts should de nts under undue hardships.” Even this Court in number o said principle of law. Accordingly, i 2025 (O & M) 3 a Karthik Sha,” 2022 Live Law eme Court has held as under:- for exercise of power under il Procedure is that the ends of transfer of the suit, appeal or onial matters, wherever Courts the plea of transfer, the Courts on the economic soundness of trata of the spouses and their standard of life prior to the ereto and the circumstances of ut their livelihood and under la they are seeking their the prevailing socioeconomic iety, generally, it is the wife's looked at while considering ore proceedings are pending in he same parties which raise d law, and when the decisions dent, it is desirable that they the same Judge so as to avoid same issues and conflict of e placed upon the judgments in ”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, ourt has observed that “while Courts are required to give more he convenience of the female dings from one Court to another aking into consideration their ld desist from putting female mber of cases has followed the gly, it is well settled that while VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 19.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document considering of the wife the custody physical h important t without ass the place to the litigatio 8. i.e. Sumita (supra) and Supreme C petition, su 9. to refer the Transfer Application No.1670 of 202 ng the transfer of a matrimonial d e wife, the Court is to consider the fam ustody of the minor child, economic ical health and earning capacity o rtant the convenience of the wife i.e out assistance of a male member of h lace to and fro from her place of resid itigation charges and travelling expen In view of the facts mentioned umita Singh’s case (supra), Rajan ra) and N.C.V. Aishwarya’s case (sup eme Court, this Court deems it appro ion, subject to the following conditions a) The petition filed by r Section 13(1)(1-a) DMC/392/2025 titled Mamta Sharma”, pend Rohtak is transferred jurisdiction at Panipat. b) The ld. b) The ld. District Judg transfer complete re aforesaid case to Distric c) The parties are direct District & Sessions Judg d) The District Judge, Pa petition to the Court of c The concerned Court at Panip fer the case before the Mediation an 2025 (O & M) 4 onial dispute/case, at the instance the family condition of the wife, nomic condition of the wife, her city of the husband and most ife i.e. she cannot travel alone er of her family, connectivity of f residence as well as bearing of xpenses. ntioned above and the judgments Rajani Kishor Pardeshi’s case se (supra) passed by the Hon’ble appropriate to allow the present ditions:- d by respondent husband under a) of Act, bearing titled as “Gauri Shankar vs. , pending in the Family Court, erred to a Court of competent ipat. Judge, Rohtak is directed to record pertaining to the District Judge, Panipat. directed to appear before the ns Judge, Panipat on 23.6.2026. Panipat will assign the said urt of competent jurisdiction. Panipat will make all endeavour tion and Conciliation Centre for VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 19.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document exploring t parties. 10. between th calendar m 11. ordinate Be Nitin Tal Gurvinder Karmajit S May 22, 20 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo Transfer Application No.1670 of 202 ng the possibility of some amicab The Court concerned, where een the parties, will accommodate th dar month. I am supported by the deci ate Bench of this Court in TA No. 13 Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 20 vinderjeet Singh; and TA No. 132 ajit Singh. Disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, , 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 2025 (O & M) 5 micable settlement between the where the litigation is pending date them with one date in one e decisions rendered by a Co- No. 1315/2022, Rohini Arora v f 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v . 1323 of 2022, Usha Rani v if any, stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.05.22 19.24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document