216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. 341 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Porshia Rani .......... Petitioner Versus Vikram .......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Applicant/petitioner in-person. Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate with Ms. Tamanna, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-wife, by way of present application/petition, seeks transfer of petition bearing DMC/19/2025, titled “Vikram Versus Porshia Rani” filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of respondent-husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat, Camp Court at Gohana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Panchkula. [2] The applicant-petitioner prays for transfer of the above said petition on the following grounds:- (i) that the applicant-wife is residing alone in a rented accommodation at Panchkula; (ii) that she is a Govt. employee and presently posted in the Skill Development and Industrial Training Department, Panchkula; (iii) that there is a distance of about 200 kms. one side between Gohana and Panchkula; (iv) that there is threat to the petitioner from the side of respondent and his family members; (v) that there is no one in her family who can accompany her for pursuing the case. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document T.A. No. 341 of 2026 (O&M) [2] [3] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. [4] I have heard the petitioner as well as the respondent, who is present in Court and gone through the paper-book. [5] Besides the facts/submission(s) noticed on behalf of the petitioner, the legal position in such like cases as the present one is also very clear. Reference in this regard may made to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay, 2002 SC 396 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishor Babulal Pradeshi, 2005(12), SCC 237, wherein it has been held 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.” [6] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, the transfer application is allowed and the petition bearing DMC/19/2025 (supra) filed at the instance of respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Sonepat, Camp Court at Gohana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Family Court, Panchkula. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Sonepat, Camp Court at Gohana to the Court concerned at the earliest where the parties would appear within a period of one month from today. [7] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 16, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.20 10:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document