TA-74-2026 (O&M) and TA-1446-2025 (O&M) --1-- 169 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:-14.07.2026 1. TA-74-2026 (O&M) Kamaljit Kaur ….Applicant. vs. Hardeep Singh ….Respondent. 2. TA-1446-2025 (O&M) Hardeep Singh ….Applicant.. vs. Kamaljit Kaur ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Arshvir Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the applicant (in TA-74-2026) and for the respondent (in TA-1446-2025) Mr. Shehbaz Thind, Advocate, for the respondent (in TA-74-2026) and for the applicant (in TA-1446-2025). ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1. By this common judgment, the following two transfer applications are being decided as common question of law and facts are involved: (A) TA-No.74 of 2026 has been filed by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer of petition bearing HMA.2035/2024 (Annexure P- 1) titled as “Hardeep Singh vs. Kamaljit Kaur”, filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred SONIKA 2026.07.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document TA-74-2026 (O&M) and TA-1446-2025 (O&M) --2-- to as “1955 Act”) for dissolution of marriage at the instance of husband from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Fatehgarh Sahib; (B) TA-No.1446 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant- husband, seeking transfer of petition bearing HMA/20/2025 (Annexure P-8) titled as “Kamaljit Kaur vs. Hardeep Singh” filed under Section 9 of the 1955 Act, at the instance of wife from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ludhiana. For convenience, the facts are being taken from TA-74-2026 (O&M). 2. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 09.04.2022; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, came to be preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the applicant-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contends that the applicant-wife has also filed the following two cases, which are pending before the ld. Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib:- (i) petition bearing MNT125/25/2025 under Section 144 BNSS for grant of maintenance; (ii) petition bearing HMA-25/2025 under Section 9 of the 1955 Act. It is submitted that the applicant is residing along with her brother and his family members at Fatehgarh Sahib Accordingly, a prayer is made SONIKA 2026.07.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document TA-74-2026 (O&M) and TA-1446-2025 (O&M) --3-- for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Ludhiana to Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed the abovementioned two cases, which are pending adjudication before the learned Family Court at Fatehgarh Sahib. 7. As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her married brother. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in “Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as 2019 (13) SCC 660 held that, in the interest of both the parties, all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court and, accordingly, allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 to 5 thereof are reproduced hereunder:- “3. As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already pending in Family Court, Bhopal, and it will be in the interests of both the parties to try all their cases in Bhopal. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it will suit to the appellant only, therefore, transfer may not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to Bhopal for conduct of other cases pending in Family Court, Bhopal. 4. We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the parties that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. 5. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.” 9. Further reliance can be placed upon the judgments in “Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay”, 2002 SC 396 and “Rajani Kishor Pardeshivs SONIKA 2026.07.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document TA-74-2026 (O&M) and TA-1446-2025 (O&M) --4-- Kishor Babulal Pardeshi”, 2005(12) SCC 237, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “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 should desist from putting female litigants under undue hardships.” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since the two cases i.e. petition bearing MNT125/25/2025 under Section 144 BNSS for grant of maintenance and petition bearing HMA-25/2025 under Section 9 of the 1955 Act are pending adjudication at Fatehgarh Sahib, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place. Consequently the transfer application (TA-74-2026) filed by the applicant- wife is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act i.e. bearing No.HMA/2035/2024, titled “Hardeep Singh vs. Kamaljit Kaur”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Court of ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana to the Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereas, the transfer application (TA-1446-2025) filed by the applicant-husband is dismissed. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court, Ludhiana to the Court concerned. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 14.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document