TA-621-2026 (O&M) --1-- 103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TA-621-2026 (O&M) Decided on:-21.07.2026 Vijeta ….Applicant. vs. Himanshu Rohilla ….Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Reetesh Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pushpreet Arora, Advocate for the respondent (thr. V.C.). ***** HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral) 1. The applicant-wife, by way of present application, seeks transfer of petition bearing HMA-321-2025, titled as “Himanshu Rohilla vs. Vijeta” filed under Section 12(1)(b&c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “1955 Act”) at the instance of respondent- husband; from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahadurgarh, to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Rohtak. 2. Briefly stating, the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 07.02.2025; on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the above mentioned petition under Section 12(1)(b&c) 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 SONIKA 2026.07.24 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document TA-621-2026 (O&M) --2-- applicant-wife is employed as a T.G.T. Teacher in Hindu Kanya School at Sonepat and currently she is residing at Rohtak. Accordingly, a prayer is made for transfer of the above mentioned petition filed at the instance of respondent-husband from Family Court, Bahadurgarh to Family Court, Rohtak. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made in the present application while submitting that the applicant is working as a TGT Teacher at Sonepat and travels approximately 64 km daily, whereas the distance between the applicant's residence and the Family Court, Bahadurgarh, is about 45 km, which, clearly indicates that the applicant can attend the Court proceedings at Bahadurgarh. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the present application. 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 petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending adjudication before the competent Court of jurisdiction at Rohtak and FIR No.253 dated 09.06.2025, under Sections 115, 85, 316(2) and 351(2) of BNS was registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, in which, challan has been filed. 7. As per the averments made in the present transfer application, the applicant-wife is a working lady, who is residing along with her old aged parents at Rohtak. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision rendered in “Manjula Singh Chouhan Versus Vishal Singh Chouhan”, reported as SONIKA 2026.07.24 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document TA-621-2026 (O&M) --3-- 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the humble opinion of this Court, since a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a criminal complaint arising out of FIR No.253 dated 09.06.2025 are pending adjudication at Rohtak, 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 is allowed and the petition bearing HMA/321/2025, under Section 12(1) (b&c) of the 1955 Act, titled “Himanshu Rohilla vs. Vijeta”, filed by the respondent-husband, stands transferred from the Family Court, Bahadurgarh, to the Family Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohtak. The requisite record of the aforesaid case be sent by the Family Court, Bahadurgarh to the Court concerned. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 21.07.2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE (i) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable: Yes/ No SONIKA 2026.07.24 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document