TA-242-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 202 Sandeep Kaur Tarsem Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. seeking transfer of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. 26.02.2026 pending before the learned at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal to a at Nabha, Sessions Division, Patiala. 2. respondent has been received back unserved with the report that such person is residing at the given address’ is being decided in his absence. 3. under: 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-242 Date of Decision: Sandeep Kaur Versus Tarsem Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajinder Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Priya Singla, Legal Aid Counsel 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 by the respondent Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal to a Court of competent jurisdiction Nabha, Sessions Division, Patiala. As per office report dated 06.05.2026, notice issued to the respondent has been received back unserved with the report that such person is residing at the given address’ being decided in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 242-2026 Date of Decision: 27.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Rajinder Yadav, Advocate for Ms. Priya Singla, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner-wife is petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘the Act’) for restitution of conjugal rights bearing No. HMA/29/2025 dated Tarsem Singh vs. Sandeep Kaur’, Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court Court of competent jurisdiction As per office report dated 06.05.2026, notice issued to the respondent has been received back unserved with the report that ‘no such person is residing at the given address’. Accordingly, this petition or the petitioner, inter alia, submits as RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-242-2026 4. allowed; and petition (Annexure P before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha, Sessions Division, P 2026 -2- i) Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 16.06.2013 ii) Two children i.e. one son and one daughter born out of the said wedlock who care and custody of petitioner iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are separately since 01.09.2020. iv) There are 02 cases filed by the petitioner pending adjudication before the Courts at Nabha which are as under:- (a) Complaint bearing No. COMA/223/2022 dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure P petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha. (b) Petition bearing No. MNT125/73/2023 pending before the learned before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Nabha, for grant of maintenance. v) The petitioner is an unskilled lady having independent source of income and is residing along with 02 minor children at her parental house mercy of her parents. vi) The distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Nabha proceedings filed by the respondent Guhla, District Kaithal is very difficult for her to frequently travel from Nabha to Guhla to attend the Court proceedings along with 02 minor children It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be allowed; and petition bearing No. HMA/29/2025 (Annexure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Nabha, Sessions Division, Patiala Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was 16.06.2013. Two children i.e. one son and one daughter were born out of the said wedlock who are presently in the petitioner-mother. ue to matrimonial discord the parties are resident separately since 01.09.2020. There are 02 cases filed by the petitioner pending adjudication before the Courts at Nabha details of Complaint bearing No. COMA/223/2022 07.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha. pending bearing No. MNT125/73/2023 pending before the learned before the learned cipal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Nabha, for grant of maintenance. is an unskilled lady having no source of income and is residing along at her parental house upon the The distance between place of residence of the Nabha and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at is about 70 Kms. one side. It is very difficult for her to frequently travel from to attend the Court proceedings children. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be bearing No. HMA/29/2025 dated 26.02.2026 vs. Sandeep Kaur’, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal be transferred to a Court of competent atiala. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-242-2026 5. on record a copy of undertaking dated 14.05.2026 given by learned counsel representing the (Camp), Guhla to the effect that before this Court today i.e. 27.05.2026 in the present case. However, despite that none has put in appearance on behalf of the res 6. I have heard learned counsel the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 7. constitute sufficient grounds for transfer, the legal position in such like cases is well established. In this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in 2022 Live Law (SC) 627 has held as under: 2026 -3- At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of undertaking dated 14.05.2026 given by learned counsel representing the respondent before the learned Family Court (Camp), Guhla to the effect that the respondent before this Court today i.e. 27.05.2026 in the present case. However, despite that none has put in appearance on behalf of the res No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana 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 soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of l 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 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of undertaking dated 14.05.2026 given by learned respondent before the learned Family Court respondent shall positively appear before this Court today i.e. 27.05.2026 in the present case. However, despite that none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. for the petitioner and carefully gone through the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Besides the facts as noticed hereinabove in para 3, 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,” ble, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 atrimonial 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 whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. for the petitioner and carefully gone through the case file. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the , 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 Karthik Sha,” ble, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 atrimonial 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 ife 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-242-2026 8. Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Babulal Supreme Court has observed that application, the Courts are required to give more 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 li 9. aforesaid principle of law. Accordingly, it is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is 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 assis a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from 2026 -4- Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. 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 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 i Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Babulal Pardeshi, 2005 (12) SCC 237 Supreme Court has observed that “while deciding the transfer application, the Courts are required to give more 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 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 assis a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from n 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 multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in Sumita and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs (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 legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Courts tigants 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 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 n society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-242-2026 her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. 10. Rajani Kishor (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following conditions: 11. refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable 12. between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. 13. Bench of this Court in 2026 -5- her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. In view of the judgments i.e. 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/29/2025 dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P vs. Sandeep Singh’, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal of competent jurisdiction Division, Patiala. b) The learned District Judge, transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Patiala c) The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Patiala on 03.07.2026 d) The District Judge, Patiala petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The concerned Court at Nabha refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 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 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 appropriate to allow the present petition, subject to the following bearing No. HMA/29/2025 dated xure P-3) titled as ‘Tarsem Singh vs. Sandeep Singh’, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp at Guhla, Sessions Division Kaithal is transferred to the Court jurisdiction at Nabha, Sessions The learned District Judge, Kaithal is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid Patiala. The parties are directed to appear before the District 03.07.2026. Patiala will assign the said petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Nabha will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring settlement between the parties. 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-242-2026 Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and 14. 15. 27.05.2026 rishu 2026 -6- 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 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. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.