TA-136-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 109 Ruby Sandeep Kumar 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. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P pending before the learned Fami competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. 2. respondent ha despite service today as well as on the last date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2026. this petition is 3. under: 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-136 Date of Decision: Versus Sandeep Kumar CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate 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. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar vs. Ruby’, pending before the learned Family Court, Karnal to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. As per office report dated 29.04.2026, notice issued to the respondent has been received back served through his mother, but despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of the today as well as on the last date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2026. this petition is being decided in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner i) Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 12.02.2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136-2026 Date of Decision: 26.05.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner-wife is 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/1244/2024 dated 1) titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar vs. Ruby’, ly Court, Karnal to a Court of As per office report dated 29.04.2026, notice issued to the been received back served through his mother, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent today as well as on the last date of hearing i.e. 29.04.2026.Accordingly, being decided in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits as Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was 12.02.2013. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-136-2026 4. allowed; and petition bearing No. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P learned Fami jurisdiction at Kaithal. 2026 -2- ii) 03 daughters were born out of the said wedlock who are presently in the care and custody of petitioner mother. iii) Due to matrimonial discord the parties are residing separately. iv) There are 02 cases filed by the adjudication at District Courts Kaithal details of which are as under:- (a) Petition under Section 144 BNS, 2023 (Section 125 Cr.P.C) bearing No. MNT125/2/2026 (Annexure P before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaithal; (b) Complaint bearing No. COMA4/2026 (Annexure P-3) filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal. v) The petitioner has no independent source o and is residing along with 03 minor daughters at her parental house and is fully dependent upon her old age parents as, the respondent anything towards maintenance to the petitioner and 03 minor daughters. vi) The distance between place of residence of the petitioner-wife i.e. Kaithal and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent Karnal is about 70 Kms. one side. It is very difficult for her to frequently travel from Kaithal to Karnal attend the Court proceedings along with 03 minor daughters. It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be allowed; and petition bearing No. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar vs. Ruby’, pending before the learned Family Court, Karnal be transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. 03 daughters were born out of the said wedlock who are presently in the care and custody of petitioner- ue to matrimonial discord the parties are now There are 02 cases filed by the petitioner pending adjudication at District Courts Kaithal details of Petition under Section 144 BNS, 2023 (Section 125 Cr.P.C) bearing No. MNT125/2/2026 (Annexure P-2), pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Complaint bearing No. COMA4/2026 3) filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is residing along with 03 minor daughters at her parental house and is fully dependent upon her old age parents as, the respondent-husband is not paying anything towards maintenance to the petitioner-wife and 03 minor daughters. nce between place of residence of the wife i.e. Kaithal and the place of proceedings filed by the respondent-husband at Karnal is about 70 Kms. one side. It is very difficult for her to frequently travel from Kaithal to Karnal to t proceedings along with 03 minor It is accordingly, prayed that the present petition may be allowed; and petition bearing No. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 1) titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar vs. Ruby’, pending before the be transferred to a Court of competent RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-136-2026 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the case file. I find merit in the petitioner. 6. 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: 7. Singh vs Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 Kishor Babulal Supreme Court has observed that 2026 -3- 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 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 No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through 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 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 No other argument has been made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through 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 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 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-136-2026 application, the Courts are required to give more weighta 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 8. 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 con 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 o a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses. 9. 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: 2026 -4- application, the Courts are required to give more weighta 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 assistance o a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and fro from 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/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P vs. Ruby’, pending before the learned Family Court, Karnal is transferred to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Kaithal. b) The learned District Judge, transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid case to District Judge, Kaithal. 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 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 sider 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 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), ase (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 The petition bearing No. HMA/1244/2024 dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Sandeep Kumar vs. Ruby’, pending before the learned Family Court, is transferred to a Court of competent The learned District Judge, Karnal is directed to transfer complete record pertaining to the aforesaid Kaithal. RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. TA-136-2026 10. refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 11. between the parties, will accommodate them with one date in one calendar month. 12. Bench of this Court in Talwar; TA No. 1322 of 2022, Jaswinder Kaur v Gurvinderjeet Singh; and 13. 14. 26.05.2026 rishu 2026 -5- c) The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Kaithal on 29.06.2026 d) The District Judge, Kaithal petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The concerned Court at Kaithal 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 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 The parties are directed to appear before the District .06.2026. Kaithal will assign the said the Court of competent jurisdiction. Kaithal will make all endeavour to refer the case before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for exploring the possibility of some amicable settlement between the parties. 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 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. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.05.29 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.