Allowed¶26

Mandeep Kaur v. Nirmal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2025TA/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer application; matrimonial dispute; convenience of wife; Section 12 Hindu Marriage Act; Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Budhlada; FIR No.193 dated 02.11.2019; Section 376 IPC; Sections 4 and 5 POCSO Act 2012; acquittal of Lakhwinder Singh; Rs.15,00,000/- allegation unsubstantiated; marriage 19.11.2022; distance 90-100 kilometres; TA-140-2024; Archana Puri; Punjab and Haryana High Court; decided 05.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

The transfer application was allowed; the matrimonial case described in the judgment as 'the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act' is to stand transferred (the operative transfer wording in paras 30-31 is partly illegible in the source). ¶26

Mandeep Kaur Vs Nirmal Singh — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-wife's transfer application for shifting the matrimonial case (described in the judgment as the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act) to the Courts at Budhlada should be allowed, having regard to the preference given to the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer applications. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The court applied the position of law according preference to the convenience of the wife in transfer applications relating to matrimonial disputes.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's sweeping assertion that the applicant obtained money from the parents of Lakhwinder Singh was unsubstantiated: no material was brought on record to support it, so it did not defeat the transfer claim.

¶25

Key takeaways

Since two other cases between the parties were already pending in the Courts at Budhlada and were being pursued by the respondent, the transfer application was allowed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

TA-140-2024, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Archana Puri, J., oral, decided 05.02.2025): Applicant-wife Mandeep Kaur sought transfer of the matrimonial case (referred to in the judgment as the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act) to Budhlada, where her petitions under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. were already pending and were being pursued by respondent Nirmal Singh; the parties married on 19.11.2022 and the distance between the two places was stated to be about 90-100 kilometres. The respondent resisted transfer citing FIR No.193 dated 02.11.2019 (Section 376 IPC read with Sections 4 and 5, POCSO Act 2012), alleging the applicant obtained Rs.15,00,000/- and turned hostile, leading to Lakhwinder Singh's acquittal; the court found no material on record substantiating this assertion. Applying the position of law preferring the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer applications, and noting the two pending Budhlada cases, the court allowed the transfer application.

¶1

¶2

TA-140-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Sr. No.111

¶5

TA-140-2024 Date of Decision: 05.02.2025

MANDEEP KAUR

....Applicant

Versus

NIRMAL SINGH

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶12

Present:Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Ajay Kamboj, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

�� !�� �� ��"#�� "��!��$�%��#�&��! �� %��&��%��'��(��! )��

¶17

*��!��%�� #��

¶18

+��

¶19

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage between the parties to the lis, had taken place on 19.11.2022, but no child was born from the said wedlock. However, on account of the matrimonial discord, the applicant has filed the petition under Section 12 of the

¶20

Sonu 2025.02.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

¶21

¶22

TA-140-2024

¶23

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which is pending in the Courts at Budhlada. Besides the same, she has also filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is also pending in the Courts at Budhlada. In both the said cases, the respondent is making appearance and pursuing the cases. The applicant has no source of earning. Even, the distance between the two places is stated to be about 90-100 kilometres.

¶24

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent resisted the claim for transfer of the case. While making reference to the reply filed, he submits that FIR bearing No.193 dated 02.11.2019, under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was got lodged by the applicant. However, later on, she did not support her version, after obtaining an amount of Rs.15,00,000/from the parents of Lakhwinder Singh and the case thus, resulted into acquittal of Lakhwinder Singh. Considering this conduct of the applicant, it is submitted that no case is made out for transfer of the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶25

In view of the submissions aforesaid, it is pertinent to mention that though, there are sweeping assertion with regard to obtaining of money from the parents of Lakhwinder Singh, but however, to substantiate the said assertion, no material has been brought on record by the counsel for the respondent.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid fact situation, considering the position of law about preference to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications relating to the matrimonial dispute and also considering the fact that two other cases are already pending in the Courts at Budhlada, which are being pursued by the respondent, the transfer application is

¶27

Sonu 2025.02.05 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document P&HHC

¶28

¶29

TA-140-2024

¶30

allowed and�� !�� �� ��"#�� "��!��%��$�%��#�&��!��!�� &��%��'��(��!�)��,�� "��"#��$�%��#�&��!��!�� )��-��!��

¶31

+��)��-��!��!�� $�%��#�&��.&�%��&��/�(��01��!�� "��$�%��#�&��.&�%��&��/�(��! ��%��%��#��

¶32

(ARCHANA PURI) 05.02.2025 JUDGE Himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶33