TA-694-202 IN THE HIG 126 Jyoti Pankaj Kum CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. seeking tran 13 of the H HMA/375/20 pending befo at Sonipat. 2. under: 2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA TA-69 Date o Versus j Kumar M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Mohit Rathee, Advocate fo I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present pe g transfer of petition filed by respon Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for s 375/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as g before the learned Family Court, Pa Learned counsel for the petitio i) Marriage of the petition solemnized on 27.06.201 ii) Two children i.e. one dau and one son (born on 01 the said wedlock, who a custody of the petitioner iii) Due to matrimonial disc separately since 10.06.20 iv) The petitioner has no residing at her parental ho v) The distance between petitioner-wife i.e. S ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 694-2026 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ate for the petitioner. sent petition, the petitioner-wife is espondent-husband under Section (for short-‘the Act’) bearing No. ed as ‘Jyoti vs. Pankaj Kumar’ Panchkula to the Family Court petitioner, inter alia, submits as etitioner with the respondent was 6.2012. ne daughter (born on 01.10.2014) on 01.10.2018) were born out of who are presently in the care and tioner-mother. al discord the parties are residing .06.2024. s no source of income and is ntal home in Sonipat. een place of residence of the Sonipat and the place of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-694-202 3. allowed; and as ‘Jyoti vs. Panchkula b 4. petitioner. I h 5. sufficient gro established. rendered in Live Law (S held as unde 2026 -2- proceedings filed by t Panchkula is about 250 K difficult for her to freque Panchkula. It is accordingly, prayed that and petition bearing No. HMA/37 vs. Pankaj Kumar’ pending befor kula be transferred to the Family Cour No other argument has bee I have heard learned counsel for th Besides the facts as noticed h ent grounds for transfer, the legal posi ished. In this regard, judgment of ed in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Sa aw (SC) 627, is notable, wherein the s 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 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.” by the respondent-husband at t 250 Kms. on one side. It is very frequently travel from Sonipat to that the present petition may be A/375/2024 (Annexure P-1) titled before the learned Family Court, Court at Sonipat s been made on behalf of the l for the petitioner. iced hereinabove, which constitute al position in such like cases is well t of the Hon’ble Supreme Court .S. Saravana Karthik Sha,” 2022 ein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ple for exercise of power under ivil Procedure is that the ends of e transfer of the suit, appeal or imonial matters, wherever Courts r 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 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 itute well ourt 022 has er of or rts rts of r he of er ce he ch in ise in ld id of RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-694-202 6. Singh vs Ku Kishor Bab Supreme C application, consideratio legal proce allowed, tak should desis 7. aforesaid pr considering the wife, the custody of th health and convenience a male mem her place of travelling ex 8. fact that iss staying furt petitioner-wi expenses an husband has 2026 -3- 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. After going through the entire at issuance of notice to the respond g further proceedings before the wife will have to bear the litigatio ses and in case, notice of motion is nd has to bear the litigation expenses 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 entire paper-book, considering the spondent has the consequences of the trial Court, otherwise the tigation expenses and transportation on is issued, even the respondent- enses and in view of the judgments RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-694-202 i.e. Sumita S and N.C.V. Court, this subject to the 9. refer the cas the possibilit 10. between the calendar mon 11. petition, if h 2026 -4- mita Singh’s case (supra), Rajani Ki .C.V. Aishwarya’s case (supra) pass this Court deems it appropriate to t to the following conditions:- a) The petition bearing No. P-1) titled as ‘Jyoti vs before the learned Fam transferred to the Family b) The learned District Judg transfer complete record case to District Judge, So c) The parties are directed t Judge, Sonipat on 22.06.2 d) The District Judge, So petition to the Court of co The concerned Court at Sonipa 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. However, liberty is granted to n, if he intends to contest the same, pro (a) The respondent will clea amount, if any, in terms petitioner either under Se 12 of the Domestic Viole Hindu Marriage Act. (b) The respondent will undertaking to pay ₹1,00 for attending the Court p Panchkula on each and ev ani Kishor Pardeshi’s case (supra) a) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme iate to allow the present petition, g No. HMA/375/2024 (Annexure vs. Pankaj Kumar’ pending d Family Court, Panchkula is amily Court at Sonipat. ct Judge, Panchkula is directed to record pertaining to the aforesaid Sonipat. ected to appear before the District 2.06.2026. Sonipat will assign the said rt of competent jurisdiction. Sonipat 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 ted to the respondent to revive this me, provided that:- ill clear all arrears of maintenance terms of any petition filed by the der Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section c Violence Act or Section 24 of the will file an affidavit giving 1,000/- per day, to the petitioner ourt proceedings at District Courts, and every date of hearing. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-694-202 12. Bench of th Talwar; TA Singh; and 13. disposed of w peculiar circ the District J to the respon order to the for the petiti 14. 15. 20.05.2026 rishu 2026 -5- (c) The respondent will bring drawn in favour of petit expenses to pursue th Panchkula in case the re petition. 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 As already noticed above, s ed of without issuing notice to the resp ar circumstances, in order to ensure ap strict Judge, Sonipat, it is directed tha respondent through registered post, b to the District Judges concerned thro petitioner is directed to ensure her app The present petition stands disp Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable ll bring a demand draft of ₹25,000/, f petitioner, towards the litigation ue the case at District Courts, the respondent opts to contest this ecisions rendered by a Co-ordinate 315/2022, Rohini Arora v Nitin aswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet a Rani v Karmajit Singh. ove, since the petition is being he respondent, accordingly, in these ure appearance of the parties before ted that a copy of this order be sent ost, besides sending a copy of this d through e-mail. Learned counsel appearance, accordingly. disposed of, in the above terms. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.22 20:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.