TA No. TA No. TA No. TA No.592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 213 RAJNI BALA RAJNI BALA RAJNI BALA RAJNI BALA Vs Vs Vs Vs SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1.1.1.1. The applicant bearing No.HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025 Section 13 of the Hindu petition” petition” petition” petition”) at the Principal Judge, Family Court, Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri. 2.2.2.2. Briefly stating, the marriage between the was solemnized on matrimonial discord came to be preferred at the instance of respondent application seeking transfer 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH Transfer Application No. ransfer Application No. ransfer Application No. ransfer Application No. Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: ...... ...... ...... ...... SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Mr. Kamil Nagpal, Advocate with Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) applicant-wife, by way of present application HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025 HMA/482/2025, titled “Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce ) at the instance of respondent-husband; Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to the Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri. Briefly stating, the marriage between the was solemnized on 01.09.2021 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned divorce petition preferred at the instance of respondent application seeking transfer thereof came to be filed by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH ransfer Application No. ransfer Application No. ransfer Application No. ransfer Application No.592 of 2026 592 of 2026 592 of 2026 592 of 2026 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 20 20 20 20.07.2026 .07.2026 .07.2026 .07.2026 ...... ...... ...... ......Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) …..Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA MANUJA MANUJA MANUJA application, seeks transfer of case Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala””””, filed under hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce husband; from the Court of learned to the learned Principal Judge, Family Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. On account of between the parties, the above mentioned divorce petition preferred at the instance of respondent-husband. Thereupon, the present be filed by the applicant-wife. 1 transfer of case , filed under hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce hereinafter to be referred as “divorce from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family respondent n account of between the parties, the above mentioned divorce petition , the present MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment TA No. TA No. TA No. TA No.592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife is residing prayer is made for instance of respondent Court, Panchkula to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the 5.... I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 6. In the present case, admittedly, the complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The same is pending competent Court at Yamuna Nagar wherein summons/notice have been issued to the respondent. Besides it 7232/Local No.181 at Women Cell, Yamuna Nagar and Police Station Farakhpur, Yamuna Nagar respectively. 7. As per the averments made in the pr the applicant-wife had opted for transfer of her service from Panchkula to Yamuna Nagar, which is pending consideration. and is facing great difficulty Panchkula. 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) Learned counsel for the applicant wife is residing in her parental home prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned divorce petition filed respondent-husband from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the In the present case, admittedly, the complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The same is pending competent Court at Yamuna Nagar wherein summons/notice have been issued to the respondent. Besides it, the complaint bearing Nos.354 dated 18.09.2025 and 7232/Local No.181-L dated 23.03.2026 lodged by the applicant, are also pending at Women Cell, Yamuna Nagar and Police Station Farakhpur, Yamuna Nagar As per the averments made in the pr wife is presently posted as JBT Teacher in Panchkula, however she had opted for transfer of her service from Panchkula to Yamuna Nagar, which is pending consideration. Applicant is residing with her parents great difficulty in pursuing the abovementioned divorce petition at applicant, inter alia, contends that the at Yamuna Nagar.... Accordingly, a transfer of the above mentioned divorce petition filed at the from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently applicant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the In the present case, admittedly, the applicant-wife has filed complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The same is pending adjudication before the competent Court at Yamuna Nagar wherein summons/notice have been issued to , the complaint bearing Nos.354 dated 18.09.2025 and L dated 23.03.2026 lodged by the applicant, are also pending at Women Cell, Yamuna Nagar and Police Station Farakhpur, Yamuna Nagar As per the averments made in the present transfer application, though is presently posted as JBT Teacher in Panchkula, however she had opted for transfer of her service from Panchkula to Yamuna Nagar, which is Applicant is residing with her parents at Yamuna Nagar abovementioned divorce petition at 2 , contends that the Accordingly, a at the from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the as filed a complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 under the Protection of Women from adjudication before the competent Court at Yamuna Nagar wherein summons/notice have been issued to , the complaint bearing Nos.354 dated 18.09.2025 and L dated 23.03.2026 lodged by the applicant, are also pending at Women Cell, Yamuna Nagar and Police Station Farakhpur, Yamuna Nagar though is presently posted as JBT Teacher in Panchkula, however she had opted for transfer of her service from Panchkula to Yamuna Nagar, which is at Yamuna Nagar abovementioned divorce petition at MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment TA No. TA No. TA No. TA No.592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan SCC 660 SCC 660 SCC 660 SCC 660”””” held that, in the interest of both the parties, proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the allowed the transfer application therein. extracted hereunder: “3. pending in Family parties to try all their cases in Bhopal. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that it will suit may not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to Bhopal for conduct of other cases pending in Family 4. that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. 5. Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed at the instance of the therefore, , , , it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard together at the same place divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. titled ““““Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala transferred from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Versus Versus Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, held that, in the interest of both the parties, proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the allowed the transfer application therein. Relevant paragraph nos.3 to 5 are extracted 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 We are of the view that it will be in the interests of both the that all their cases be heard together by the same Court. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 n of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed at the instance of the applicant, are pending adjudication at it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard at the same place. Consequently the transfer application is divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala Sushil Kumar vs. Rajni Bala””””, filed by the respondent from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to ed Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, Vishal Singh Chouhan, reported as “2019 (13) 2019 (13) 2019 (13) 2019 (13) held that, in the interest of both the parties, all connected matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be heard by the same Court and, accordingly, Relevant paragraph nos.3 to 5 are As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already 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 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. 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. Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Court, Indore to the Family Court, Bhopal.” Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble a complaint case bearing COMA/63/2026 under the n of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and two more complaints , are pending adjudication at Yamuna Nagar it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard Consequently the transfer application is allowed allowed allowed allowed and the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. HMA HMA HMA HMA////482/ 482/ 482/ 482/2025 2025 2025 2025 , filed by the respondent-husband, stands from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to ed Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhri. The requisite 3 rendered in 2019 (13) 2019 (13) 2019 (13) 2019 (13) all connected matrimonial same Court and, accordingly, Relevant paragraph nos.3 to 5 are As per the submission of the appellant, two cases are already 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 to the appellant only, therefore, transfer may not be permitted. The fact remains that the respondent has to travel to parties Therefore, H.M.A. Case No.71/2016 is transferred from Family Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble under the two more complaints Yamuna Nagar, it would be in the interest of both the parties that all their cases be heard and the 2025 2025 2025 2025, husband, stands from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula to The requisite MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment TA No. TA No. TA No. TA No.592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Court concerned. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. July July July July 20 20 20 20, , , , 20 20 20 2026 26 26 26 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) 592 of 2026 (O&M) record of the aforesaid case be sent by the learned Court concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No learned Family Court, Panchkula to the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 to the Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.22 09:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment